User talk:John Carter/Archives/2012/July

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

Please comment on Talk:Pakistan Zindabad

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pakistan Zindabad. 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) 19:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 19:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Three Questions regarding "Reliable Sources"

I have submitted 3 general questions about the reliability of sources in Wikipedia practice:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS/N - and in my enquiry I had to include (as supportive examples) refrences to some issues which appeared on the talk page of the Soka Gakkai, and in which I quoted one of your opinions about reliabity of a Univerity source. The 3 Q about reliability constitute a separate subject being in essence a general enquiry related to varying interpretations of what a reliable source is - (and it is separate from another matter which was given a title of Riverside Press Blog, and which is unresolved yet). Regards SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter

Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's Minas Gerais igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's New York City Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

I have left a message on this talk page, as a response to your enquiry on my talk page. Pass a Method talk 17:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

OC

That has been done already. Tony (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Srebrenica massacre

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Srebrenica massacre. 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, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mali

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mali. 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, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Pls look at this edit

Hi John, it might already be on your watch list, but could you please look.at this edit. I'm trying to steer clear of this subject area for a.while. Thanks. Zad68 02:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Perth (disambiguation)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Perth (disambiguation). 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) 22:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Macclesfield Bank

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Macclesfield Bank. 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, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai

Since you also tried to resolve the issues in the above mentioned article I would just like to let you know that I contacted the Administrators' noticeboard - the whole issue is getting out of hand close to vandalism ... since it it such a fringe subject I found no other way. Thanks for you input though.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet again thanks for your imput. In the talk section there are some coments by user [User:Naveen Reddy]. I already contacted the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance, but since its the first time I had to do that I am not sure if I did all the necessary steps. If you have time have a look in the articles talk section ... see eaht you make of it.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
To be honest I am sort of feed up arguing with Safwan the somewhat long history of the article shows its controversial nature. At this point I really do wonder if not a new article “Criticism of Soka Gakkai” would make sense? I just hate it if Wikipedia is used for whitewashing as attempted here. There are critics of this Organisation based on scholar issues, experiences and journalistic investigation there have to be means to get those issues be mentioned. Any ideas?

--Catflap08 (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks your ideas John. Personally I do not think the article Criticism of Buddhism is suitable, although, by alleged number of members, Soka Gakkai is a large Organisation within Nichiren Buddhism it stands only for a certain fraction. Nichiren Buddhism yet again in the wider context is yet again a fraction. If you however could help to get the attention of those who are interested in such matters and of whom you think that they are fairly neutral – this would be a great help. Even though I am experienced in editing and solving disputes on the level of an article I do run into limits on who to contact. Yes I am a critic of SGI, but would feel far much comfortable if neutrals would have more input in this article. Criticism of SGI has a long history in this article and without it the article would be a advertisement (as written now). So if you could help getting some other editors attention I would very much appreciate that. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I can try. Jayen466 I've already contacted. He's one of the best we have for dealing with NRMs in general. To all appearances, the Buddhism WikiProject seems kind of moribund, but I might be able to find some editors for Japan who might be of use. Give me a few days to see who is still around. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
John and Catflap: I welcome any criticism of the Soka Gakkai or Criticism of Buddhism if you wish. Whatever you bring will only solidify the truth about the modern peaceful nature of SGI and its acknowledgement by hundreds of universities – in particular after independence from the priesthood. With the spread of the internet, such opportunities to investigate Buddhism become vital for many people, changing their mind about Buddhism. Traditional Buddhism in Japan is known as Funeral Buddhism, and the image world wide correctly gives the perception of being superstitious, isolationist, vague, contradictive or even problematic on the political map: such as the Tibetan conflict and associated violent self harm. The difference is huge with SGI modern teachings based on humanism. Even if “some observers” would see this as “lacking tolerance” from SGI side, SGI would definitely criticize these cults leading to self harm or deserting society, or regarding priests as divine. Nichiren used his freedom of expression to criticize similar cults of his time, inviting them to a peaceful debate in presence of the government, something echoing parliamentary debates in our time. Buddhism is about humanity, peace and dialogue, and thank you for the opportunity to realize this here on this screen as well.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Safwan your are totally entitled to your opinion and no editor in Wikipedia would hold anyone back to describe how SGI sees itself or on how its being regarded by its adherents. What you however also have to accept is that other, alternative and critical views of SGI exist as well. You are in no position to use Wikipedia for judging them to be right or wrong – this is not possible. Those views exist and therefore they are mentioned-thats what a neutral point of views is about - to get a balanced impression. You misinterpret Wikipedia as a battleground. Wikipedia lists facts and that other views exist is a fact. I have my very personal opinions on SGI, but this is not the place to discuss them or have a debate on them within the article. What I surely will not allow is that Wikipedia is used as an advertisement tool. What you did however achieve is that other editors come up with even more critical views that were published – also on an academic level. Therefore I would not beat the drum too loud on the Tibet issue – to my knowledge one never heard much from SGI when it came to human rights abuses in China and indeed Tibet let alone about suppressing Tibetan Buddhism … --Catflap08 (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
@Safwan: I have no reservations whatsoever about information as you wish to include, provided it is reliably sourced and it meets wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:WEIGHT and WP:TPG. Also, I very much urge you once again to read [{WP:POV]]. You seem to be rather closely tied to Soka Gakkai, and, on that basis, it is not unreasonable to question whether you are completely objective about it. In such cases, editors with an apparent POV should realize that their own views may not accurately reflect the independent academic views. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Matters are yet again becomming serious again. Please check the latest edits by safwan which I reverted again. Getting close to vandalism.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

john could you conatct me via email on a rather tricky issue?--Catflap08 (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Took a while to respond on the Riverdale issue. Still in need for neutral input on recent changes on articles related to nichiren and nichiren buddhism.--Catflap08 (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi John, Just to let you know that the issue has now also beem brought up in the Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Some interesting entry on User talk:SafwanZabalawi ... your opinion?--Catflap08 (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention

I appreciate your interest in this new project, and hope you might have the time to help with something that is a bit outside of my normal editing. We need to setup categories for participants, etc., userboxes, and the basic accoutrements needed for a project. Dr. Blofeld recommended you for this, and I was hoping this was something you could add to the soup. Let me know if you are able, it would certainly be appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably could do so, although I think maybe not till tomorrow. The one question which arises for a userbox is what if any image you want in the left-side box. John Carter (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I thought about that a little. Something that demonstrated "partnership" is some way would be good. The idea behind it being bringing people together. Unity, cooperation, those words come to mind. Might have to search commons with those terms and throw up a gallery on the that subpage to consider. Once we have a basic template, we could always throw out a few images and let others vote for an "official" one if you weren't sure. I made a page linked off the main for the them[1], as I assumed we would have a few to choose from. I didn't expect you to do all the work, but was hoping for some structure help as that isn't my specialty. I'm trying to clear my wiki-calender a bit for the next couple of weeks, as I have other projects at home but I want to work on this more as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. It would be good to have a category for all editors who belong as well. Once the list of members is long enough, that would have to be spun off as well. I would think for now, one page to list all "former" community members, (two that I can think of Balloonman and FleetCommand come to mind) with a tabled setup and simple "why they left". As to not be contentious, I would be careful with wording "Frustration with admins" "Frustration with POV editors" or something as neutral as reasonably can be done. Then it will be easier to see categories of "lost" editors needs to be spun off first, and that first page will always be the starting point for all "lost" editor cats. The list doesn't need to be complete, and can't be really, but will be easier to maintain from here forward as they can be added as they (unfortunately) leave. Perhaps catching it sooner will help as well. Just my ideas. I think you and I are of like mind, here, and I will leave to your judgement. I don't have enough experience in this one area, and as you know, things will be changing for a few months anyway, until we find a formula that works best. Thanks for the good work so far! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I would love to help with the set-up if needed! I can do a number of set up tasks associated with WikiProject set-up and would really be honored to help both John Carter and Dennis Brown with this any way I can. I will submit some original vector art to the gallery for members to consider as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This setup of grouping the research and work focus by reason type (new, harassed, exhausted, etc.) is exactly along the lines of how I was thinking to organize it. I was thinking to let conversations develop over the next few days and then see how the categories fall naturally. Zad68 20:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I am going to begin work on a directory page for the WikiProject Council Main Directory. For now I intend to name it "Wikipedia-Help" and will link off all the specific editing help projects.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting Discussion

There seem to be two interesting projects Wikipedia:Religion and Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style a cooperation might be useful.--Catflap08 (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

encyclopedia of religion

I was taking a look at User:John Carter/Religion articles and I noticed that a whole lot of the articles listed as missing in the Judaism section we actually do have articles for, we just title them differently. (The encyclopedia has a decidedly old school academic way of transliterating Hebrew words which isn't common anymore). I made a few redirects in the article to fix a few redlinks, but I don't want to make too many more redirects for spellings that aren't likely to appear anywhere else. If you'd like I can go through a fix the links with [[article title|encyclopedia entry]] in your space. However I don't know what your actually doing with the page, so I don't know how useful this will be (and I never touch a page in someone else's user space without explicit permission). Anyway, if it'd be helpful, I'm happy to do it - just let me know. --Bachrach44 (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically, the list in the section on "Encyclopedia of Religion" is the list of articles in that book by article title in that book. Given the prevailing opinion of that book in the academic world, which is that it is possibly the most highly regarded encyclopedia on the broad topic of "religion" in general that isn't clearly written from the viewpoint of an individual "school" of study, it struck me as being the best indicator of what articles regarding the subject of religion in general are most important to an encyclopedia. Basically, if the topic is important enough for that encyclopedia to have an article on it, than it's probably important enough to get a "Top" importance assessment here for WikiProject Religion and possibly/probably for the individual religion most relevant to the subject. In some cases, for instance, a Lutheran academic whose claim to notability was being one of the earliest students of Oceanic religion might well be Top importance to Religion and maybe a group on Oceanic religion if it existed, but probably not for Lutheranism. So, basically, given that the items in the Synoptic Outline of religion of that book, which my list duplicates would probably qualify as being Top importance to both WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Judaism. I had gone through all the articles marked as "extant" on that page and tagged and assessed them already for the Religion project and any other that seemed to apply by placement in the outline, although I haven't gotten to the redlinks or those elsewhere. And, yeah, I've been creating a lot of redirects myself, although that's been on hold lately given other considerations.
The intention, ultimately, is for that page, and a few others, to be broken up into subpages for each relevant project, hopefully with the name and then footnotes to the reference works I'd have gone through which contain substantial articles on that subject. I was thinking that would help develop a lot of content rather easily.
Now, finally finishing rambling, basically, if you agree that it is a decent indicator of importance, I would have no objections whatsoever to you going ahead and doing as you said, and, if you want, tagging and assessing the articles you find. The only possible problem I would want to be more or less on guard against is if the topic is a similar, but not identical, one. Granted, I don't know Judaism as well as some others, but I do know that for some articles the apparent subject based on the title isn't the subject of the article. Not often, but sometimes. This might be for instance when a title refers to a specific legend of a god rather than to the individual god per se, like maybe "Demeter and Persephone" as a possible example. But, yeah, if you want to, and you are fairly sure that the topics are the same, which they are in most cases, I would definitely welcome the assistance. John Carter (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I see what you're saying - I'll stick mostly to fixing things where it's a simple spelling difference. I definitely think the final list of redlinks can give us an idea of where there's fertile ground for new articles. --Bachrach44 (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Editor Retention: You are the "Retain at-risk and recover departed experienced editors (including admins)" team lead

Hi John, I went ahead and created project teams for each of the general editor retention areas people have expressed an interest to work in. Please review the team lists here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Project_teams. I have assigned you as the leader of the "Retain at-risk and recover departed experienced editors (including admins)" team. Assuming you are interested in taking on this role, please notify the members of your team, and verify each editor is interested in being on the team. I expect that there might be some shuffling around of roles and teams at first, but once the teams are settled, I will co-ordinate with the teams leads to put together goals and a basic project plan to make sure that the project as a whole is successful and makes a measurable, positive difference for Wikipedia. Thank you for for your involvement... Zad68 19:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Religion topics

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Religion topics. 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, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hoping for a recount

Sorry to fuss over the already too long ANI discussion where you recently commented, but would you mind looking at my reply dated "07:37, 12 July 2012". I'm still hoping an independent admin will close the discussion, and would like the numbers sorted out to make the job less unattractive. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Falung Gong 2 proposed decision talkpage

John,

A number of your posts on the Falung Gong 2 proposed decision talkpage go beyond discussing the proposed decision, which is the purpose of the talkpage, and veer heavily into the discussion of content. Please could you remain on topic, in the future ? Thanks --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a point. I do however think that, however verbose I admittedly get at times, there is a somewhat valid reason for them. The primary purpose is to build an encyclopedia. Some of the comments I made there are about how the development of an encyclopedia, which is this project's primary goal, would very likely be hindered by some of the decisions being proposed, in terms of removing editors who might be among the most capable of developing that content in terms of ability, neutrality, and knowledge. And, honestly, at least in my own eyes, one of the central issues regarding this case is at least somewhat the possible willingness to develop content regarding the general subject. Having said that, yeah, you're right. My apologies. John Carter (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cluj-Napoca

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cluj-Napoca. 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, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Staff at WikiProject Christianity/Assessment

I noticed that you are one of the staff listed on project page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Assessment. Please note my concern at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Assessment#2010 Backlog: Where is the staff?. If you ask me, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Assessment team is more on top of their game. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Assessment#Requesting an assessment.) I was referred to you by User:Dougweller at User talk:Jasonasosa#Bible verses. Thanks,  — Jasonasosa 09:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Washington DC listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:WikiProject Washington DC. Since you had some involvement with the Template:WikiProject Washington DC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kumioko (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orleigh Court

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Orleigh Court. 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, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: July 2012


ICHTHUS

July 2012

Membership report
The parent Christianity WikiProject currently has 336 active members. We would like to welcome User:Emilymadcat, User:Toa Nidhiki05, User:DonutGuy, and User:RCNesland, Thank you all for your interest in this effort. If any members, new or not, wish any assistance, they should feel free to leave a message at the Christianity noticeboard or with me or other individual editors to request it.

From the Editor
Ichthus is one of the ways that the WikiProject Christianity’s Outreach department helps update our members. We have recently added some new sections to the newsletter. Please let us know what you think of the new departments, and if there are any other suggestions for departments you would like to see. And if you have anything you would personally like to add, by all means let us know. The talk page of the current issue is probably the best place to post such comments.

With that, I wish you all happy reading!

P.S. Please click here to add the new Christianity noticeboard to your watchlist to follow the latest discussions relevant to WikiProject Christianity and subprojects.

Church of the month


by User:JaGa
Mission Santa Clara de Asis

Vote for the project mascot
We had last month asked our members to help "bring into the fold" Wikipe-tan as the project's mascot. Voting will take place this month for which image we should adopt at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/Wikipe-tan. Please take a moment to review the images and vote for whichever is your favorite, or, if you so prefer, suggest an additional one.

By John Carter

Calendar
Thie coming month (mid-July through mid-September) includes days dedicated to the honor of Mary Magdalene, James, son of Zebedee, Ignatius Loyola, Saint Dominic, Joseph of Arimathea, and the Transfiguration of Jesus.

Featured content and GA report
Grade I listed churches in Cheshire was recently promoted to Featured List status. This picture was recently promoted to Featured Picture status. Bartolome de las Casas and Edmund the Martyr were promoted to GA level this past month. Our thanks and congratulations to all those involved.


Wikimedia Foundation report

Wikibooks welcomes the development of textbooks of all kinds, children's books, recipes, and other material. It currently has just under 2500 books, including several Wikijunior books for the 12 and under population. There is, at present, not even a book on Christianity. Anyone interested in helping develop such a textbook is more than welcome to do so.

By John Carter

Christian art

The portrait of Sir Thomas More by Hans Holbein the Younger.

By John Carter

Spotlight
A new WikiProject relating directly to Christian history is being developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian history. Anyone interested in assisting with the development of these groups and topics is more than welcome to do so.

By John Carter

I believe
... in the tradition of Thomas the Apostle, Mar Addai, and Saint Bartholomew. I believe that Jesus had two essences (or natures), human and divine, unmingled, that are everlastingly united in one personality. I am a member of the Assyrian Church of the East.

By John Carter

Help requests
Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from a variety of other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
EdwardsBot (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2012 Pacific hurricane season

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2012 Pacific hurricane season. 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) 00:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam

Hi John: Just had a look. Wonderful what money can buy! I had some emotion -- not sure how to categorize it -- seeing the listings of obituaries of several friends.


I think the likely articles of interest are pretty obvious -- a saw a dozen or so. I'd love to see them in full if you can download. Also the Oakland Trib articles on the Sufi Reoriented plans for a big center in Walnut Creek would be nice, to add some meat to the Sufism Reoriented article, if you don't mind. Some serious controversies going on there. Lastly saw 2 articles about Darwin Deez. He's a friend of mine, and I'd like to reference them in his article as well. You have my email I think? Thanks for this generous kindness. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes to DRN

Hello there. I have recently made a proposal to change the way that disputes are handled and filed at DRN. As you've listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN, I would appreciate your input. You can find the thread here. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 02:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Srebrenica massacre

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Srebrenica massacre. 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) 00:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Methodist work group page

Hi John, when you get back from your wikibreak:
On the above page, in the Article assessments table, I notice the unassessed / assessed figures do not seem to be updating with changes. Maybe it's just very bad lag, but I'm inclined to doubt it. The Unassessed Meth wg articles page does update. I recently signed up with the work group and have been working through the unassessed. God bless, David_FLXD (Talk) 09:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of vegans

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of vegans. 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) 00:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Meth WG members list

Hi John, (when you are actually back from your Wikibreak) please take a look at the Members list. I have marked active members on the basis of current Wikipedia activity. Should we not try to group the members at least into active and inactive, adding new members to the active section? David_FLXD (Talk) 19:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at David FLXD's talk page.
Message added 20:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

David_FLXD (Talk) 20:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius/essay/rant about Falun Gong pages

Since you withdrew the MFD, I closed it for you. Seems I'm the only non-admin who knows how to close discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote

A hatnote at the top of the article god says the article is in the "context of henotheism or monotheism". Is that a definite or conclusive rule? Pass a Method talk 01:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Scientology talk page logorrhea

Do you have a thought about the next move with regard to the editor whose semi-coherent pontification has taken over that page? He doesn't seem responsive to other editor's attempts to channel his efforts productively, and at this point his ranting has become so voluminous that the talk page is difficult to negotiate. -- BTfromLA (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think both User:Dougweller and I have spoken with this person already. Doug in particular advised this editor about the existing sanctions on all Scientology related content. WP:AE is an option, but, under the circumstances, maybe a bit of an extreme one for a newbie. WP:ANI and WP:RFC/U, along with a short block perhaps, are the two others. Unfortunately, I rather doubt any more limited possibilities would work. Doug has said he has troubles understanding her writing too. I've asked Doug for his comments as well. I would myself prefer to avoid AE if possible, but I'm not sure that there would necessarily be any point, as I'm not sure this editor really has any interest in the encyclopedia per se. John Carter (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the editor's user page and linked blog and, well, to my mind they both support the notion that this is someone unlikely to adapt well to wikipedia. Whatever the user sanction, I do think something should be done about the talk page (e.g., immediately archive all of the off-topic threads), so that others can work on this--Scientology is in the news now, and it's likely that editing activity will step up. Thanks for being on top of this. -- BTfromLA (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll take your word about the blog, and I won't ask whether your reasons are related to grammar or content, although I suppose it could be both. Taken what you've said, the only thing from this editors' activity which I get the impression they might be able to contribute constructively to is maybe something relating to the question of the existence of God in Scientology. She has indicated some sort of "intelligent design" concept without an explicit God, and that's what I base that comment on. Having said that, I'm not sure if it's enough to necessarily keep a less-than-productive editor. It might be a good idea to keep the talk page as is, as evidence, until that time though. Hoping to hear from Doug here soon. I expect, even if he's retired for the night, we should be able to act one way or another by tomorrow at the latest. And, of course, if you personally see fit to act before then, you are free to do so. But, right now, I guess the question is about whether it should be a Scientology ban or a site ban. John Carter (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of Talk:Scientology, is there any particular reason that the Talkpage Archiving is set to 100 days? I thought about changing the "algo" to 30 or 60 days, but before I do anything wanted to check with someone to see if there's a reason I am unaware of. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
RL is intervening for me as I have plans that will keep me busy for the next 36 hours more or less. I may have time for a comment or two and for damage limitation on my watch list, but that's about all. I think there's a competence problem here, so probably a site ban. Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
John, I was hoping to get some administrative guidance with regard to this problem--my involvement here is sporadic, so I hesitate to initiate an administrative discussion that I may not be able to follow through on in a timely manner. I'm also not clear about what to propose: is a "site ban" a complete ban from Wikipedia? Unless the editor in question has been acting up elsewhere, that seems a little severe at this point (though, as I said earlier, all signs suggest that this is not someone who will ever become a productive wikipedian). So, if you don't mind, I'm going to bounce the ball back into your court; perhaps some other admins could be asked to look in and venture a recommendation. -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You deleted my sandbox

Could you please undo that action? There was no cause for this; I had already courtesy blanked the page, but deleting it entirely now makes the old material (which was linked to in evidence at ARBFLG 2, and is found nowhere else) totally inaccessible. I certainly did not request for it to be deleted, as your edit summary suggested. Homunculus (duihua) 23:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bloody Christmas

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bloody Christmas. 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) 01:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Version

John, can you explain why you prefer this version: [2] ? Pass a Method talk 20:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

He explained himself in his edit summary: "no consensus has been sought or received for these changes". If you disagree, take it up on the article talk page, and try to get consensus for your changes. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Two editors have argued for a chronological version, myself and this editor, against adjwilley. Could two vs one be considered a consensus? Pass a Method talk 14:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it is not. I am once again struck by the irresponsible rush to judgment which seems to be your calling card. It is indicative of extremely problematic behavior in general, and is rather reasonably sufficient cause for further consideration of sanctions against you. I am also struck by the remarkable inconsistency of your behavior. You were the one who said there should be no changes until the RfC was over earlier, and now, because something seems to be favoring your own position, you seemingly can't wait to get your way, even if doing so flies directly in the face of your own earlier arguments. I am becoming increasingly convinced that some sort of RfC/U or, more likely, request for administrative review on one of the noticeboards seems called for. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:God

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk: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) 01:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at Cuchullain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Country InfoBox help needed

Assistance is needed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Bulgaria_discussion to help decide which dates should be included in the InfoBox of Bulgaria. It is a complex situation, because there were political entities from 700-1300, then a gap of several hundred years without any entity, then 1878 saw a new state. Any input is appreciated. Please comment there, not here, to keep things co-located. [Note: You were randomly selected from WP:FRS list. ] --Noleander (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page

Many many apologies, it was just rude of me not to respond sooner, although my avoidance of a response might be due to your post containing the phrase "Falun Gong". I've always avoided that topic area and as much as I understand the need to have Admins familiar with it, I've been spreading myself far too thinly and recently removed a number of articles from my watchlist. I'm also finding that the copyvio problem seems to be growing, or at least I run into more and that takes up an increasing amount of my time (this is stuff I find myself, not through working at CCI). I have the one year Highbeam account, but again, I want to stay out of Balkans related stuff. I'm involved already in SE Asia stuff for various reasons, and that's an area with precious little Admin input and I although I'd love to get out of it I don't think that would be right at the moment. So, sorry John, I'd love to if I had a 36 hour day, but I already have several editing projects (in archaeology and history related fields) that I never find time for and really don't want to venture into new fields. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever. I can understand the impulse to avoid that topic, believe me. The copyvio problem is probably as serious if not more so, and it is probably a good idea to have someone giving it all the attention it merits. And, honestly, given the amount of stuff that needs to be done around here, I doubt even a 36 hour day would help that much. We'd probably be talking more in the range of 60 or so. ;) John Carter (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep. It's been hard, but I've been making a point when I go on vacation to stay off Wikipedia. Otherwise I'd just go mad. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flag of India

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Flag of India. 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) 02:15, 28 July 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) 07:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Iraqi people

Iraqi people has a pov dispute. The article tries to conflate "Iraqi people", a term I can find in Google books only going back to the 1980s, with "Mesopotamian people", a term that is obviously used normally to describe Sumerians, Babylonians, etc. but not used normally to describe modern Iraqis. I've tried to clean it up a bit, not that I think that will last, but I can't find the template, shows how much I don't know! What do you think? I know, a nerve asking you since I won't volunteer for the cesspool, but... Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Found it, I shouldn't have been using {{'s. Changed it to, so we shall see. It should all be based on reliable sources, not povs. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hm, one of the IPs (at least) is discussing and being discussed at WP:ANI and had restored the Mesopotamian claim shortly before I reverted it - I hadn't noticed that.[3] Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 July newsletter

We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees New York City Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Carter/Archives/2012/July&oldid=1160937684"