User talk:Warlordjohncarter~enwiki/Archive Jun 2008

Templates

Dear John Carter, I like the Round In Circles template you mentioned on the H. falls page. You know what would be great is a "Groundhog Day" template for when the round-in-circles loops over a longer time period. (For example, if persons bring up the same issues with a 2-3 month space in between.) One could reference the talk pages for the discussion loop (hopefully) to prevent a re-occurrence of Groundhog Day. Do you know how to create templates? This would be fun. Renee (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I posted a support statement there. Here is an adorable picture if people believe it's worthwhile. Renee (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe reception of a new template is lukewarm or can we go for it? (BTW, you and Job of the old testament have a lot in common regarding this, I can't believe it's still going on!) Renee (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello John

How have you been?

User:Sarvagnya has opposed on the Zinta FAC. Among other comments (which are clearly not valid), he claims boxofficeindia.com is not a reliable source, while it's clearly reliable. It's a joke. Major and famous newspapers like The Times of India, Hindustan Times use it as a source of information, so why can't Wikipedia? You can see the links on the FAC. It's tiresome. What do you say? Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey again, John.

John, Dwaipayanc created a new section for the IPL cricket team: "Ownership of Indian Premier League team". It's good, but seems too long for the ToC in comparison to the other section headings. My suggestion was to rename it "Ownership of IPL team." Dwai thinks it's better to leave the full IPL title, because it's not as famous as other titles like UNICEFF and PETA. So I thought it would be more appropriate if we changed it to "Ownership of IPL cricket team" or "Ownership of cricket team" in order to make it clearer, because the IPL itself is IMO not really an important detail for the heading; the matter is IMO the fact that she owns a cricket team. Also, when we say "Ownership of IPL cricket team", I think it gives the clarification of what an IPL actually is, so the acronym is clear and ther's no need for a long section heading.

What do you think? What's the best way to name the section? I just get a bit annoyed by such a long heading in the ToC, which makes it huge and unpleasant. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, I'll take care of. Didn't notice that...

I'm now working on the last para in the career section. Here's how it looks as of now:

As of April 2008, Zinta has completed shooting for Jahnu Barua's drama Har Pall, as well as Deepa Mehta's Canadian movie Heaven on Earth, an English-Punjabi language drama based on the real story of a NRI battered wife who bore years of domestic violence. Another confirmed project, Sameer Karnik's adventure film Heroes, is scheduled for release in June 2008.

Is it OK? Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess the Heaven on Earth part is a bit complicated. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I just think Tony's comments are unclear. He says "'characters of a diverse nature'—five words could be just two." - what does he mean? To change it to diverse characters?

And what does he mean when he says "'bringing a change in' could be just one word."? "Changing"?

Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

He says "range" is a bit vague... Do you have a way to clarify that? Or maybe another word would look better there? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Poll: Change name from "Sex work work group" to "Sex work task force"?

Polling all members of the group to see if they are OK with changing the name of the group. Poll is here. – Iamcuriousblue (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

race and ancient egyptians

hey john when the dumbbot removed the fully protection temp it also removed the semi protect temp can you put the semi protect back,thank you--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

MichaelCPrice

Since you've had contact with MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs) and because you seem knowledgable about the general area, I wonder if I could trouble you to keep an eye on Talk:List of people who have disappeared#Jesus. I am currently in a dispute with this editor over whether Jesus should be included on the list. The editor has reverted twice in the last two days with minimal discussion and, from what I can tell, seems to be pushing a fringe view of the Resurrection and/or the early Church.

I've read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites and I don't much like what I see there. After reading the case, it's unclear to me whether the one-revert-per-week-per-article limit applies to just the Ebionites article or to any article on a related topic. I'm not sure any admin action is warranted at the present time, but thought it was worthwhile to give you a heads up to nip any potential problems in the bud.

Thanks, ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Burma

Well to put things in perspective see the missing settlements in Bhamo Township with comprises of 1/18th of Kachin State. There are 14 states/divisions in Burma. So basically your timesing this by 18 and then multiplying by 14 and that justs Burma!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hi again! Regarding the directory reorganization, I thought my edit should not be reverted. Like I have said before, the massive amount of sections makes the loading process slow. Furthermore, the project directory is meant for editors not familiar with WikiProjects to use. Personally I think my version was much more organized.

Also, I did not remove any project from the directory, instead I simply removed the ones that appear too much. For example, there were sections that contained only one project and another project that also is listed under twenty more sections. I simply combined all of those sections under one single section, which makes it much more organized, IMO. Since there were no removal of active projects from the directory, may I humbly ask for the permission to revert?

In the edit summary you talked about a certain "format." Is the format simply the difference between =text= and ==text==?--Jerrch 23:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Workgroup; SWaminarayan

I noticed your comments about the workgroup. We should have editors soon, and we plan to have more artcles by te end of this summer. Probably another 50-60. We will have close to 150 then so we will wait off until then. Thanks for you comments.    Juthani1    01:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Also was wondering if you could give me rollback rights.    Juthani1    01:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Sorry John Carter, I did want to take your advice on mediation rather than AN/I, but the other party doesn't seem to be interested in that. I don't think I can make any good out of the mediation if the other one doesn't want to co-operate with that. Sorry Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I shall do that, but I would also like to point out that Naadapriya is already accusing me of starting a pramature RfC. BTW, does no other admin look into the AN/I? I am very disappointed with the way the two AN/I's I have seen is being neglected. Anyways, thanks for your help. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

John which looks better the above or below? MOst people have no idea where these places ar ein Norway and I believe the locator map is a progresssion. Please tell me what you think thanks

Any thoughts on this? Hey its my birthday today!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hiayah. Yes I absolutely agree with you that the national map looks better but the four images after each other makes it too long. We're trying to come to something where the Infobox Kommune can include the national map and not make it overly big, hopefully something in between. I've become so accustomed to changing things in most africa, latin and asian countries where few people seem to care what you do and you try to edit a european country and suddenly an army of people start flashing at you (I don't mean bits and pieces if you catch my drift). The Swiss didn't take to kindly to my implementations either! Hopefully we can work something out but I am keen to standardize things by country. Sheeks I'm half way to 30 now. Can't believe it is May already ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hogenakkal Falls mediation

Thanks for adding yourself as a party. I am almost done with my wiki time for today :(. I will try to repost the issues based on content on the mediation page either tonight or tomorrow morning. In the mean while, if you think it is appropriate and possible, can you put the issues down on the mediation page please! I will strike off the earlier issues soon after I get back. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I somehow convinced my wife to go to wikipedia again for this evening and now I have modified the disputes. If you intend to add more, I am assuming you can do it, as long as you leave a signature. I may be wrong too. Are we required to leave messages in the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu Wikiproject pages to alert users to take part in the discussion? I can't do that unless it is required since otherwise I will be caught guilty of WP:CANVASS am assuming. Thanks for your help so far. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 19:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done on the border issue. I will alert the mediator too. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Juthani1

Thanks for your reply, and I didn't know that it made a new page. I will fix that. I will consider setting up Twinkle. I don't think anyone at wikiproject Hindusm would object and a lot of people actually agree. Thanks for your great reply and all of your help.    Juthani1    18:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Cities, towns and villages in Thailand

Hello Mr. Carter. When you log in I need you help with something. I wish to move all of the articles in this category with have the ending ....town back to the original pages and then to leave a notice at the top of them e.g

this article is about the town of .... For the article on the province of the same name of which it is part of please see .... Province

There is no reason if this is carried out why any settlements in Thailand should be called ....town as this is the incorrect title for the article. However I've tried moving the pages back but it blocks me from doing so. Could you please delete the original page redirects to the provinces articles so the stray pages can be moved back. Now if I had admin tools I could have done it myself tut tut.

E.g Chachoengsao town should be moved back to Chachoengsao rather than redirecting to the province. Instead a notice should be written at the top to link to the provincial article ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah I'm back. Try moving Chachoengsao town to Chachoengsao and you'll see you can't. The only way it can be done is to remove the Chachoengsao page from the database, and then moving the page afterwards when its been cleared, The only other way I can do it is to redirect but this of course would lose the page history and is likely to cause complaints. Have a go at deleting the Chachoengsao page entirely from wikipedia. ONce this has been done try moving the Chachoengsao town page to Chachoengsao again -it should work. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly thats perfect. Could you quickly move the others in the category which have the ....town ending on them back to the original names. Somebody moved them originally when they shouldn't have. Cheers ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope I can't do that see Buriram now. I think it is because you have admin tools you somehow managed to removed it entirely. Putting a deletion tg on it in a normal account doesn't do the trick ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Try moving Buriram town. I;m certain the page actually has to be deleted. If I had admin tools I could sort in out in two minutes ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Naturally I have the move option as everybody does but when I tried to move it this following message comes up:

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.

Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move.

Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text.

I am certain that if you have and admin account it permits you to do it even when the page is there. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If I was an admin I could have done it automatically. It's times like this I could really do with being an admin ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Drunk? Heheh. Well its at times where it seems silly I have to ask admins to do things which I could do within minutes myself. For me adminship is less about ruling over others (which some people on here seem to think it is) and more about having tools to make important maintenance changes to the project. Given that I now have nearly 150,000 wee edits (World Number 3) (if you;ll pardon the SPECTRE reference) it does seem strange I haven't been given such tools ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is it has its positive aspects but part of the reason I've turned it down up until now is because I don't want people asking me to have to sort out all sorts of vandalism or intervene in a stressful situation or block some editor several times a day as it may interrupt my work. If I was just given certain tools I;d be happy to help sort any problems from time to time as long as it doesn't affect my contribution to the encyclopedia ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes that exactly how I feel about it. What concerns me is some people who barely have 5,000 edits think oh I want to be an admin so I can be really powerful and order others around, and we can both know these those kind of editors a mile off, the intentions of some people who crave adminship really is very suspicious. I on the other hand would rather be able to use any further tools that will make my encyclopedia editing even more efficient than at present. I don't mind stepping in occasionally if there is trouble or am ask to comment but doing that sort of thing day in day out and spending most of my time at admin noticeboards and general lawyering (like many do) isn't what I'm here for. Probably if I was asked I would say one of my specialist areas would be new page patrolling and speedying deleting any poor new entries. Perhaps that might stand me in good stead as people can see I'm the last person who would abuse the tools, but on certain areas on the admin side of wiki I must admit I only have a basic knowledge of the different pages, to date I have focused almost entirely on the encyclopedia content as much as possible and in a way have ignored much of what goes on, but intentionally so as what I've seen at certain admin pages I have been pretty disgusted with ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've finally got around to sorting out the Mexican town categories. The text in most of the Mexican articles is absolute twaddle isn't it. Hardly any of them are referenced well or wikified properly and most of them seem to have been hit by uneducated IP addresses. I was very disappointed with the state on some of the Thailand articles too. Sigh sigh ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Heres an extract on a town I've just seen:

"There is much to see and do in this sleepy little town, from mountain biking, to scuba diving, kayaking and, most important, fishing chartes to catch a big game fish. To catch big game is of course dependant to weather and season. If no big game fish is caught, then it might be a lot of Dorado, Grouper, Snapper or Pargo, just to name some excellent fish for eating. There was once a road but that road was only a better donkey path. And traveling was kind of an adventure. The Baja peninsula contains mostly out of lava rocks. And many streets even today are covered with those lava rocks".

Perhaps they are confusing it with deepermost Japan? Hehehe ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Zinta FAC

Hello John!

I must say I'm tired. I have no problem with editors opposing, but when editors try to fail it from the very outset, it saddens me a lot. Please see the last oppose. Clearly not actionable, especially cosidering all the other BLP FAs. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Bald One is on the case. I copy edited the first few paragraphs earlier and I'll try to give it a vigorous seeing to over the next few days ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

as a trial I'm removed all the copywrighted images and I have to say I think it affects the quality of the article. Two of the images I consider encyclopedia. The larger beatuiful picture of Zinta in KANK, the bottom one however I have to admit was more decoratative but the teenager mother and image of her with Khan in a Filmfar award winning role I think are encyclopedic and help understanding and visualize her role as an actress ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes as stunning as the image of her in the gold jacket in KANK is, it hasn't really a purpose encyclopically. The other two are discussed significantly in the text and even in the intro to the article and they are also images of landmarks moments in her career so should not be discounted. I don't mind objections that copywrighted images shouldn't be included in an article but what concenrs me is double standards and that some FA's like Diane Keaton are permitted four screenshots while others seemed to have to refrain from any. What I want is consistancy all over. Either they are permitted all across wikipedia or they aren't. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A light at the end of the tunnel, with Tony withdrawing his oppose. Now there is another oppose. But the problems seem to be not as serious now. One editor left some comments but some of his comments are not clear to me. For example, he says "grammar..." and I don't really know what he means. For example:

"She would subsequently take on a variety of character types, and in doing so has been credited with changing the image of Hindi film heroine." Grammar.. - does he mean that an "a" is missing after "image of"?

Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr Bigglesworth has done a spot of editing today all by himself

Combined Banner

The combined Christianity/Eastern Orthodoxy banner does not seem to categorize the article in the importance category for WP Eastern Orthodoxy when it is added. see Talk:Nicene Creed. It stays as unknown importance. Grk1011 (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hogenakkal falls. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Revamp of the assessment scheme

Hi John, thanks for offering to help with this initiative. I think we have enough warm bodies to get things started (though I think most of us are pretty busy!). I'm suggesting that we start with a clear, detailed definition of the scheme, using examples as Holon suggests. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN

I've posted about the Talk page abuse at WP:AN. I want an outside opinion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Colorizing background of photographic portrait

Hi John. As a BLP expert, perhaps you could weigh in about a BLP controversy over at the John McCain talk page? Here's the issue, neutrally described: the McCain article has for a long time started with a photo of McCain that is a cropped version of his official photo. Both this cropped version and the original official photo include black clothing on a black background. Is it okay to change the background to blue, or would that violate some BLP policy? Presumably, cropping the image does not violate any BLP policy. Thanks in advance for any comments you care to make about this (pro or con).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And for contacting DC.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure you're aware that a request has been made for Peer Review of the McCain article.[1]Ferrylodge (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your role in Hogenakkal Falls

I guess you became active in HK falls article on request by Wikiality123. At random your comments were interpreted by Wikiality123 as that from Admn. Please clarify whether your comments are as an editor or Admn or both. It will be helpful to know which comment is under what role for e.g one made on 13:22, 29 April 2008. I am asking these clarifications since I have never faced this situation during my tenure in Wikipedia. The major concern I have is that your comments were mostly towards me than contents of comment. Also your comments repeatedly pushed for unwarranted blocking. Please note I do not have an issue about your participation in the article. But I need clarification about the role. Thanks. Naadapriya (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You do not seem to me to be aware of policies regarding this matter. An admin is an admin, it is impossible to separate the function. And you make a serious mistake in your own statements above. The content which you were seeking to include was not acceptable given your own failure to produce evidence to support its inclusion. Despite this fact, you repeatedly engaged in unacceptable behavior, which was noted not only by myself but others as well. Such misconduct is a violation of several policies and guidelines, and is a potentially blockable offense. I did not by the way ever push for unwarranted blocking, as I never "pushed" for blocking. I was indicating that your behavior was such that you could be seen as qualifying for a block. I am sorry that you are apparently unable to perceive the difference, but that problem is not mine.

In fact, I regret to say that your possibly willful misrepresentation of the situation as it existed at the time, coupled with your regular refusal to abide by policies and guidelines, which was noted by others as well, hardly enhances your credibility, rather the opposite in fact. You have been repeatedly advised to actually review our extant policies and guidelines so that you would have a better idea of how to conduct yourself than you have to date displayed. I have to assume from your statements above that you had as of that writing still not done so. I therefore suggest to you once again that you try to familiarize yourself with our standards of conduct, so that you do not continue to break them. John Carter (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey John

Hey John, as you know, Tony has withdrawn his oppose so I believe we can reach the so awaited FA with some work. My question is:

The following sentence seems to be too praising:

After the release of this film, Zinta was recognised for her versatility as an actress; commended for work portraying a wide range of characters in Kya Kehna, Sangharsh and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke, and credited with establishing a new image for leading actresses in Bollywood.

What do you think about changing it to:

"After the release of this film, Zinta was often recognised for her versatility as an actress. Critics attributed her characters in Kya Kehna, Sangharsh and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke, as to establishing a new image for leading actresses in Bollywood."

What do you think John? Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The original is a problematic sentence. Not only are you using the same reference in just a few words but you are basically saying the same thing twice and the tone is far too gushing at the same time with all those claims in one sentence. Recognizing her versatility as an actress is exactly the same thing as critics attributing her portrayal of a wide range of characters. It just isn't right. There should be two claims -that critics recognized her versatility in playing a wide range of characters and that her roles were quite symbolic in that they contributed to a new perception of a Hindi film heroine.

Shahid's newest example seems fine but

This sentence seems right to me:

"After the release of this film, critics recognized her versatility as an actress and attributed her roles in Kya Kehna, Sangharsh and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke as contributing to new perception of a Hindi film heroine".

PLease read the comments I've made on Shahid's talk page and join in the discussion as to how to try to improve it ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You have an email. I'm curious ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There we go. Check the main page Liberian National Museum. Perhaps you would like a reading break? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Sandy, is it OK to leave a message on one editor's talk page and indirectly ask him to oppose the nomination at a certain FAC? That's what the only editor who opposed at the Zinta FAC did now twice. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've sent the comment to both Sandy and you because I wanted both of you to know about this. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes John, and I'm referring to this also. He says, "Would you also be able to weigh in on this FAC? imho, it is bad enough not to be FA."

After editors like Tony and Laser withdrawing their opposes and one of them even changing to "support" - we get to that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIV - May 2008

The May 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Christianity Project Elections

Can we close the elections now ? Please accept the post of Lead co-ordinator . You are more deserved and eligible for the role. -- ₮inucherian ^(Talk) - 05:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind being the Lead co-ordinator of the prjt ? If so, I shall close the elections -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Togo

I've created a template monster at Template:Bassar Prefecture. When I've comepleted it there will be severa; hundred articles to tag for togo. Have you organized a bot yet such as JohnBot which could be used to pound on those talk pages?? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you try to create your own personal one. It would save you so many hours of tagging. I'm certain a bot could be created to get these Africa setltements up and running also but so far nothing ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I've never been one of the computer science nerds either. Thats isn't my thing either. But in this day and age you shouldn't have to do that huge amount manually for tagging I don't think espically if there are a batch of articles which have the same level of importance or class. Could you try addressing it to User talk:MBisanz and say we want things done 10 times faster! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds promising. I'm just having some computer trouble every page is taking like 2 minutes to load. I just cleared the browsing history which was enormous but its still playing up. I'll do a reboot now see if it goes back to normal. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

problem editors

hell john, im having a little bit of a dispute with two editors on the grunge music article with this user [2] and this user[3]i made a small change to the decline section to mesh better and be more accurate with the statements made with in the section but some how these users keep reverting and are unwilling to compromise i have not made a disscusion on the article page but i have been trying to come to a compromise on one of the problem editors user page but they just keep reverting the edit and i gave a 3 revert rule warning to one if you could look into this thank you i dont know what elese to do --Wikiscribe (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play party (BDSM) (2nd nomination)

Since you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, i would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Play party (BDSM), which is currently up for deletion. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

ISSO (Swaminarayan)

I wanted to move the above but to its full name, International Swaminarayan Satsang Organisation, which redirects to the above. However, the redirect there prevents me from doing so. I understand that ur an admin, an u pl. do this? Thanks, Wheredevelsdare (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup listings

Hello,

recently you requested cleanup listings for Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology. I'm not sure whether you already announced these listings to the other project members (I found nothing to that end on the project talk pages). My goal with this "test phase" of the cleanup listings is to gather feedback whether these kind of list are useful, and how they could be improved. So I'm interested that the project members actually take notice. I can of course post on those talk pages myself; I just wanted to find out whether you already left them a note somewhere or not. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, John.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. As you felt the need to remain neutral, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Graceful loss vs havoc

Hi John. Since you know the Wikipedia policies better, please tell me what happens when:

• Some user proposes a rename/merge and a vote is taken.

• the proposing user threatens havoc thereafter if he loses.

• The user proposing this loses the vote and continues to butcher the page, cause havoc and starts a process of slow merge and slow rename in a gradual manner to achieve the same affect as the vote that he lost.

• Several other users are unhappy about this and hav eexpressed frustration on other pages as well. What can they do?

This is happening on the Blessed Virgin Mary page and is slow vandalism in my view. What are the Wikepedia remedies here?

Thanks History2007 (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will follow your advice. History2007 (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at Blessed Virgin Mary(John_Carter) makes a bit more sense (in context) now that I see what History2007 told you here.

I, "the user"

• proposes a rename to Blessed Virgin Mary since I was it as a violation of WP policy
• never threasted havoc
• did, among many other things said, point out that I would edit the page-content fit the page-name if the page-name stayed the same.
• have done this since the change (to meet WP policy) fell undone -- but have mostly added material.
• did, get multiable reverts and accusations of "butcher the page"
• did and do make continued efforts discuss content issues with History2007, but without much feedback from him as to what is ment by his accusations --Carlaude (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

>Poke<

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Proposals

: )

- jc37 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

how to take part in "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarvagnya"

dear John_Carter , i wish if i would have some examples or assistance dealing with this page. regards:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Weird edit conflict

I can't figure it out, but I think your support somehow got swallowed up in a weird edit conflict, because it's not showing on the page? [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Very weird. I did a null edit and now it's there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: kitties

Well, I assume you've read the relevant stuff here already? ;-)

Other than that, I'd suggest taking things slowly and not getting caught up in trying to change everything at once; that tends to lead to burnout (either yours or the rest of the members'). Particularly with a project such as Christianity, I'd suggest focusing initially on bringing all the various sub-groups onto the same page and consolidating them as much as possible.

Beyond that, watching what good ideas other projects come up with and adapting them for your own purposes tends to be fairly beneficial. It's largely a question of what the active membership wants and/or can sustain, though. Kirill ^(prof) 01:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Thanks a lot for the award and kindwords. You made me really happy -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 05:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008 Newsletter

May 2008 Newsletter is ready to take off at Template:WikiProject_Christianity/Outreach/May_2008 . Let me know if there are any concerns or suggestions asap.I had asked BetacommandBot for delivery -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 05:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Board elections/2008

Well I do have a lot of ideas certainly as to how the wikimedia project can develop, for starters developing the most advanced translation and comprehensive language service on the web which I feel is extremely imortant in breaking down barriers in the world of knowledge. Any site which attempts to achieve the "sum of all knowledge free to anyone in their own language" cannot go on ignoring language development and how easier it would be if different wikipedias could translate across the project with a service.

I'm not sure how I would go about it being a board member, I also think I have good credentials, but if it means I would have to travel across the globe just to attend meetings then I would have to decline. Its a nice thought though. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

edit potection request

edit protect request for the grunge music page for a couple of weeks the page is being reverted constantly--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

BVM: I quote

Because others have re-added my content and History2007 re-removed without disussion again, he writes:

I think my revert of your edits should remain. This matter is in the hands of administrators, therefore, please discuss it with them, not me. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is not where an administrator comes in and fixes one person-- they mediate between people. Than means it is already between you and I (at least) and that for a mediation to take place-- you have to take part!

Yes, we know that you your revert should remain-- and you have a right to an opinion-- but not to just have things your way you want it-- nor to just have things your way because you "asked for mediation." --Carlaude (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How is it that I am said to be violating WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS, or that History2007 is not? --Carlaude (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically, because it seems your changes may have been contrary to the consensus, so he could be seen as trying to act to support the consensus which arose. If you want to request formal mediation on the article, fine, do so at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I haven't myself had all the time required to review all your changes, but I think formal mediation would probably be the way to go here. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

While I know it was a long discussion, if you read a bit more carefully you will see that the 9:2 vote was only on a merge-- an issue that someone else suggested-- is not really at issue here-- and that people used as a straw figure even back then after it was dropped a possibility.

Is this why you think he has consensus?

The vote here on a rename would be the relativant issue, if any of them are, and it had no consensus.

Further more, History2007 is the only one I notice with this bone to pick (against me), but someone else this morning begin putting back in my changes on his own, until History2007 undid and claimed some authority. I know that 2:1 is not much of a consensus but it looks to me like it is more with me than against me.

But-- even if History2007 did have "consensus" of something-- why is he impcitly permitted to undo my edits when he will not state his case or even state what "the consensus view" is?

Flooding of the Nile

Hey John! Any particular reason the Egypt banner was deleted when the ancient Egypt banner was added? I was curious if this is something that you're doing for other articles where the subject might fall within the scope of both projects. This however will prevent it from being assessed in the other project. — Zerida ☥ 01:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Response

I don't know what his main conclusion is. Is this site reliable according to him? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I must say I trust this site very much, especially considering the fact that many other reliable sources do. It will be very difficult to find such accurate information as that on the net. This site is the best. I cannot get how newspapers can use it and Wikipedia cannot. It's an evidence isn't it? New sources will turn the page upside down. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to fight for this source, because I don't think only about Zinta. 300 additional Bollywood-related articles on Wikipedia are involved. Our entire project will be destroyed. See Gguy's comment on the FAC, I think it's very relevant. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I frankly prefer to lose an FA, rather than see 300 Wikipedia articles destroyed. The problem is not the source, the problem is that it's Indian. The zero international recognition that Indian sources receive is the main reason to that. And it saddens me. I cannot concede. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You know John, I can imagine that you are now very surprised with my response, but I think you can somehow there understand my concern. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I really agree with you. It's not the case however. "which is really only about the revenue information." -- that's the problem, it's not only revenue information. As you know, revenues are almost always different and even contradicting, the only thing that remains steady is the verdict: "biggest hit", "top-grossing" etc., even when it comes to American trade sites.

The matter is, something I cannot understand and am very skeptical about, is the usage of this source in very reliable sites. Forget ToI, forget Hindustan Times, but Times Online, an internationally recognised newspaper. Are the editors of this newspaper less intelligent and/or responsible than we Wikipedia editors are? I believe the site is very careful and must assure that they use the best sources as their sources. How can we ignore that? I really respect Girolamo, who seems to be as intelligent as you are, but what about User:Nichalp, User:Spartaz who did accept the source?

What do you mean by "If other sources which do cite that source can be found" - there are...

Please believe me John, if I hadn't been sure of this site's realibility from the beginning, I would never have used it. But the information is accurate, the site is definitely not a blog, it is very active, and the info is always approved, I say that as someone who is very aware of what goes on in the Indian media.

I'll see what happens until tomorrow. I've messaged Girolamo and Geometry guy, whose note re BOI on the FAC was very impressive.

Now I have to go. Thanks for the help, I really appreciate your great efforts. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello John! You must see the bottom of the noticeboard page! Sarvagnya now questions the reliability of boxofficemojo.com as well in the same way he did that with BOI. I think it makes some things clear. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

John, first of all, I'm sorry if I did/said something wrong yesterday. Secondly, Gguy commented on the noticeboard. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you're busy right now, but I would also like to note that you told Sarvagnya at the beginning of the discussion to prove that BOI is a self-published source. He did not do that, although User:Haemo supported you, and then continues citing to WP:SPS, which actually was not relevant because he hadn't proved its being a self-published source. I believe we can still fight for this source. It was not an easy task to look for other BO statistics, and without that site it will be very difficult to make high quality articles. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:John Z has posted a very valid comment here today - his point is extremely valid. It's a big WOW! But it went unnoticed because it was not posted in the right subsection, because there are several subsections after "break on Boxofficeindia.com: special invitation for broader input", and he may have mistakenly considered themas new topics. We should contact him and ask him to move his message to the last relevant subsection of BOI. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

GeoBot

Hi there. We've requested the creation and programming of a new GeoBot. You are invited to join in the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Some type of GeoBot ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not the response I wanted at the requests page. Seems some people think it likely the Burmese goverment is going to start donating information about its 40,000 settlements. Thinks have to be made so awkward on this site don't they. I don't know why I bother to even look at a wiki discussion page. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

A Wikiquette alert over User:History2007 conduct on Blessed Virgin Mary and related pages has been posted. --Carlaude (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

FA Zinta

John, Shahid has requested to close the nomination early as he feels it will never pass. I on the other hand think differently and it is virtually there is we can solve those small problems. But people could really give the guy a break with the criticisms. Please offer your thoughts. Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing to tell you except for thank you for the amazing help. I told everyone that it's reliable, nobody listened. Some editors think they have the authority to decide things. They did not even prove its being SPS, so how can we take it at face value? And I'm very tired. In a month or so, I'm leaving Wikipedia. Until then, I want to do something substatial, which will let me leave the project with a smile on my face. But when I see that my attempt to address a comment is being reverted with no basis, it's the last straw. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the history. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So is now BOI considered reliable? (at least by Giro) Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

His answer to me: "I've acknowledged that I won't continue to contest it at the moment" Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it was shown to be an SPS. That's not the reason why I conceded the issue. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel there is no such thing as "someone's word carries more weight than a lot of people" because all editors are equal, regardless of what role they have on here. Relata for example is a perfect example. Now, as for others, whose opinions I do not consider valuable at all (IMHonestO), they should understand what consensus is. If they continue to oppose even after Girolamo doesn't, it will be a perfect evidence that it's just a matter of personal caprice. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if they are all equal, then why should they bow down to my change? It doesn't stand to reason. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because there is consensus; and they remain the sole editor to oppose. Don't you think they are all equal? Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

One has the right to continue to disagree. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you think of Giro as a ruler either John. He is a great editor and coordinator of films and is an educated and wise user, but he still isn't an authority which you seem to imply, its still a matter of opinion. I find it very odd that because Giro sees some evidence of reliability of the source now suddenly there is an end of any doubt whatsoever. I have to admit that the new developments clearly assert reliability of the source anyway which was never the major issue is was portrayed to be, but that isn't because Giro says so but because the evidence presented by other people has made it more clearer.

New BVM Fork

Ambrosius007, History2007, and Xandar seem intent on making two articles, Blessed Virgin Mary‎ & Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), to the same with the same material-- and proved (to me anyway) that they do not understand the WP:FORK policy. What do you recommend? --Carlaude (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Smith's Bible Dictionary available in print.

As Lead Coordinator of WP:Christianity I thought you would want to know that Smith's Bible Dictionary (Public Domain) is available in print from Thomas Nelson. I can't put a link to the web page because it keeps going wrong. Where I am in Australia it is available at Koorong. This information is also at WP:Christianity Talk Page. Kathleen.wright5 10:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC Sarvagnya

I undeleted the page just to double-check Sheffield's involvement on the talk page. It seems Sheffield had some input on the talk page (some comments regarding Sarvagnya and sources). It looks like he's trying to resolve a dispute regarding the article's sources. After a quick review, I think we can let the RfC proceed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is user conduct. I don't think SS made any attempt to resolve this issue. Also, besides a Wikiquette posting and your postings on his talk page (which he reverted), I don't think Sarvagnya's conduct has been discussed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And just a heads-up, comments like [5] and [6] aren't going to make any headway in trying to get another user to be more civil. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The second wasn't mine, but I understand the point taken. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Too lazy to post on both your talk pages...but you know what I mean. :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You can leave some notes on user talk pages, but please make your notice "neutral". Don't overstep the bounds of WP:CANVASS and you should be fine. You can also leave a link on relevant article talk pages (Hogenakkal Falls, in this case) to inform users. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Last stupid question. I've seen in the past just saying "Let's confine our comments to the article, not each other, please," can be effective. Does it qualify as a semi-formal "warning" for RfC purposes, though?

I'm not sure I understand, but I'll take a stab anyway. If you mean a "warning", as part of the attempt to resolve a user's conduct issues, then no, I don't think this would be sufficient for RfC. Please tell me if my answer helps at all. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the answer I was looking for, thanks. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Huge orphaned category; needs WikiProject Islam's attention

Could you take a look at the following categories: Category:Years AH, Category:Decades AH, Category:Centuries AH? These are really sparse, and a lot of the pages are just stubs. It looks like a project that someone started that got abandoned. I'm not really sure what should be done with them (perhaps condense into a single time-line?), but I am reasonably sure that this shouldn't stay the way it is. What do you think? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't do the links correctly. They're fixed now. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave a message, but I don't think it's likely I'll get a response, per his user page:

I'm sick of the censorship posing NPOV and also about people meddling in articles they don't know anything about. My time is too precious to be wasted on people who can't value it. I'm not active here anymore, just checking things out from time to time. Do leave a message if you want, but don't count on any response or enthusiasm.

— User:Striver

TallNapoleon (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

K, message posted. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pilate's Wife

I'm not sure. The article does need work, and there is no doubt about that. It needs quite a bit of polishing and improved sourcing - but locking it down might be the best solution. I just hate to lose the chance to improve the article. We are also (I believe) up against our 3 reverts for the day. Pastordavid (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Insult

John if for some reason I ever get into an argument with you you'll be sure not to call me a Bald Knob won't you?. LOL I can't believe a settlement exists under that name. Oh I hate you Blofeld you;re just a "Bald Knob". He-he-he-he ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OH LOL thats a good one. The funny thing is naturally its innocent and dates back to the 1000s after a man named Focko. Blofeld is Belgian but his lair was at the top of Piz Gloria in Switzerland in 1969 when he tried to assume the title Count de Blofeld. Chuckle chuckle. Oh I aim to get some sort of sub wiki project page system created for much of Africa over the next week or so where I can lay out the red links by creating pages for the regional/district templates like country like I have done to burkina Faso. CHeck out Category:Cities, towns and villages in Togo for instance. A week or two ago it only had about 15 articles ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats the way to do it. The category Category:Cities, towns and villages in Bamingui-Bangoran was created earlier. This way we can stuctually work through every region of each country and really get these places onto here as you requested before. According to Sadalmelik government data is gradually becoming avialable on thes eplaces too to expand in future. What do you think? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it would certainly be too big a task to complete manually. The best I can do is lay out all the templates and red links and start one or two regions in detail across the world. I could probably get through an entire medium sized african country in a few weeks if I stuck to it. The thing is out there somwehere there should be info avilable to expand them into start class articles. I never dreamed we'd have twenty decent articles on Madagascar for instance. I rmemeber adding a few about two years ago but there was nothing avialable at the time so I gave up. Now Sadalemik in finding a source has generated well over 1000 decent articles to date and it is proof that it can be done. Somebody else has also done a similar thing with Ethiopia and there are some surprsingly detailed articles on its settlements too. Oh if we could get a bot sorted it would be like the Rambot run a few years back only this time 10 times the scale. The article count of wikipedia potentially would nearly double. Structually it would be very important for the encyclopedia to achieve this and they would gradually be built upon over time. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks for the suggestion, John. SheffieldSteel has started mediating, lets see what turns out. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

New York bridge

I reckon Zinta's hiding

I know lets look at a wonderful picture of the bridge (AGAIN) LOL.

I am kidding of course but I;ve lost count how many times the images have been moved around in that article. Its not important though Black Kite stills looks like he will oppose anyway ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Somebody informed me they have done work on Andrianampoinimerina. While the content is good the writing is not too good in places -some of the sentences are 7 lines long and almost no paragraphs either. Some of the links in that article are crazy. Interested in starting an article on his grandfather Rakotomavo Andriambelomasina Andriamaheritsialainolotany?. Now thats a mouthful ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. Glad to have been able to clear up that gender thing for you. ;-) I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot

Things are now looking very promising having spoken to a programmer User talk:Fritzpoll. There is also a US. geo data source which has 900kb of names and coordinates which could be used. Later the articles should try to expand if we can obtain national government data on population etc. But this is the best thing we can do for starters. Sound good? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Also can you get JohnBot to tag the articles in Category:Cities, towns and villages in Algeria cheers ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL I can see you were hard away at tagging religious articles. Whatever happened to just Catholicism vs Protestantism??, Muslims in the middle east, Sikhs and Hindus in India and then and buddhists, confucionists and taoists in the far east? Yes I have my hopes for this especially as it is using National Geospatial Intelligence Agency as a main source which nobody can argue isn't as reliable as you can get for such a task. Names and coordinates are non copywrightable particularly as they are extracted from public domain sources. The only way I can see it being disapproved is by somebody claiming otherwise. So I won't be celebrating until the bot has been apporved and has got well into the task at hand. But anybody can see that potentially the encyclopedia could nearly double in size if it fulfilled its potential and it would allow editors to spend more time trying to expand articles rather than spending virtually all of there time in trying to start a small percentage of just one country. Not a bad goal of world domination huh? Blofeld is living up to his name ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See here. Am I misreading something here LOL? Did the fairy god mother tag all of the togo articles I started then? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Just had to award one for your persistent, tenacious efforts on the Hoggenkal Falls page. I came back to check on it and you and Shef.steel are STILL hanging in there. You ARE a tireless contributor! Renee (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. I really appreciate the effort you've put in. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Scottish National Antarctic Expedition

In the dark days of April 2007 you awarded this article a stub rating. It has since developed from a single line to a full length article, but still has a stub rating. I don't know how these things work, but shouldn't the stub be removed? Brianboulton (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Governance reform

I haven't been able to keep up with the persistently rapidly progressing discussion—I actually stopped reading around the end of April. I am really interested in the matter, but have no time to read all this. It seems to me that you have managed to stay abreast of the developments; could you furnish me, if possible, with a short summary of where the discussion has been through and whither it is headed, so that I may contribute again with my views? I'd appreciate it a lot, Mr Carter. Waltham, The Duke of 02:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Croatia

I just noticed that Croatia doesn't seem to have anything sorted for tagging. It has a project tag and categories ready for assessment but as yet they don't seem to work. Could you look into it when you have a mo, cheers ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blofeld of SPECTRE. Do I accept this time? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I turned it down John, chiefly because editors who I have had past disagreements with will have a field day in collecting "evidence" as to why I shouldn't have tools to help wikipedia even further. Likely sources of my "misconduct" are likely to be obtained from the Preity Zinta ordeal or any disagreeable editors I have encountered in the past. The thing is if I was made an admin I would be extra careful to monitor my edits and posts to other editors and try to exhibit the most exemplary behaviour to other editors as possible. I have done more than create articles on here, I have done a great deal of maintencance work and sorting out trouble and helping other editors considerably also on many occasions. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject redirects

Can you please help me understand this? Do we redirect France, Germany, Italy and Spain to Europe? I don't understand this; I'll follow your page for response to keep discussion together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Per Talk:Spain, it appears we don't redirect WikiProject Spain to Europe, so why are South American country Projects disappearing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to know where the discussion took place about this where you're combining a whole bunch of wikiprojects into one group. Are those projects subsumed into Christianity now? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I had received a message, I think from Blofeld, although I can't find it right now, that the Venezuela banner didn't have assessments, and that he thought it was time to add some. Like I said, though, I can't find it right now. Considering that party has been making a lot of stubs for settlements in various nations, it struck me as reasonable to either add assessment parameters to the banner or use the existing SA banner, which does already include assessment parameters for Venezuela. It didn't occur to me that there would be any objections, but that it would be a lot of effort to replace the banners to add assessments for Venezuela, so a soft redirect seemed the way to go. Regarding the Dunstan article banner adjustment, that isn't an attempt to "subsume" the projects into Christianity, although I can say that the projects on Eastern Orthodoxy, Church of the Nazarene, unofficially Saints, the group with which I have the closest ties, and I think one or two others have agreed to such use of multiple banners, but just as a way to reduce the amount of banner clutter while at the same time maintaining individual assessment for each. None of the assessment information was lost in the change, and in fact, the EO Project, which recognizes that individual as a saint and thus considers him important to some degree, was added as well. John Carter (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an official member of any of the religion projects, but I do a LOT of article writing for them, so it might be a good idea to check with them about it, because a causual reading of the banner there at Dunstan sure looks like Christianity is the main project and the others are now supporting/part of the bigger project. Sounds like a good idea in the abstract, just not sure how well it'd work in practice. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, John Carter, but I'm not completely following your response (perhaps because I don't know how banners etc. are coded). The decision to eliminate Venezuela banners was because one user asked you to, with no discussion elsewhere? Is the problem that the banner doesn't allow assessments or that the Project hasn't done then? If you specify the problem in a way I can understand, I'll make sure it's fixed at the Venezuela banner level. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't myself check to see if the party making the proposal had mentioned it anywhere else, I guess assuming it had been done. If it were wanted to adjust the Venezuela banner for assessments, I could do that myself to fit the existing categories created for the SA banner, but got the impression from the message (which I really wish I could find now to provide verification) that the project was comparatively inactive and that he would be starting on the several hundred or thousand yet to be started articles on settlements in Venezuela presently, like he's recently done with Togo. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec reply) Don't worry, you don't need to produce the post, I'm not questioning your motives or the truth of what you're saying :-) I am trying to understand where the problem lies, how it can be fixed, and how one person can determine that a WikiProject should disappear from talk pages (I hope that doesn't happen again without broader discussion, and in this case, it was a particularly bad choice). Shall I ask someone to fix the Venezuela banner, or is that something you can do? Exactly what is the problem, and I will see that it's attended to if necessary. The reason that a number of Venezuelans editors are less active lately would be a large tangent to this discussion, so I won't go into it here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what has happened here? Didn't we find a Venezuelan banner which didn't work or have assessment parameters??? It seems like a ages ago but wasn't it true that many of the banners on many of the Venezuelan articles didn't have assessments and John took the necessary action to correct this and ensure they had proper assessments. Wasn't what he did with Venezuela in assesing articles under South America in line with his work in keeping other small active projects under the regional ones? What about all of the african and asian wikiprojects which are assessed in the same way. Personally I am all for each project to have hundreds of editors to make it a valid seperate project but I don't see much evidence of the amount of editors working on American/French articles etc as Venezuelan. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism has hundreds of editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

But what have Venezuelan assessment banners got to do with Catholicism??? If John tagged any of the Venezuelan articles he would have been sure to tag again for WP:Catholicism so they have two tags. IN my view every country on wikipedia should be regarded as even and have even coverage but given the few editors who edit Venezuelan articles (considerably less than Argentina) for example are there enough editors to sustain a fully fledged project. I observed a number of the project members a while back and remember discussing with John how suprised I was at how inactive the project and its editors had become. I remember noting there were many members from Caracas which I thought was great but their activity seemd to have died down considerably ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC

Catholocism doesn't have anything to do with Ven except that I noticed that he was consolidating denominational project banners under Wikiproject Christianity, kinda like what was happening with SA and Ven. That's all. I brought it to the attention here, and John replied. I still think he should point this out to the various projects, especially the Anglicanism project which is reasonably active, but it's not a big deal. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What seemed the case Sandy was that the WP:Venezuela banner didn't appar to have assessment categories which was the problem. Wasn't this true John? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(several ec's later)In response to Sandy, as one of the editors with the Catholicism project and a practicing RC myself, I know how big that project is. However, the banner didn't really "disappear" from the talk page there, it was placed in a "slash" arrangement with the Saints and EO banners after the Christianity banner with the assessments remaining in place, just basically reducing the number of banners on that article. They also appear separately in the "drop-down" section of the banner when the full banner is visible. In the Dunstan case in particular, I however might have been better advised to leave the existing banners in place, and probably won't do anything similar without more obvious cause, like perhaps consolidating the Oriental Orthodoxy banner into Christianity on an article about a Catholic bishop who is a comparatively minor saint to the OO. In several of the other articles which hadn't yet been tagged for the relevant Christianity projects, I am "tagging" the articles for all the related projects with just the one Christianity banner just for the purposes of reducing the number of separate banners. Lots of these individuals are venerated as saints or equivalent by several of the five churches which have separate projects, all of which would presumably want to tag the article. Granted, with the British bishops I'm going through now, its been mainly Anglicanism and Catholicism so far, but when I get out of England that will change rather dramatically I think. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(teases John) Just be nice to "my" bishops! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still completely baffled as to how this ties in with WP:Venezuela?? Sorry you;ve lost me on that one ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Theology workgroup?

John, good idea on the general discussion forum. It got me thinking about a theology workgroup, and I threw this together as a possible starting point. See what you think. Pastordavid (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group

An interesting idea, though from the looks of beginning discussions has the likelihood of being extremely polarizing and divisive (with heated discussions over the name of the work group itself, no less.) Though it does sound interesting even given all that, I've got my hands full at the moment with various featured-content drives. Thank you for thinking of me. Cirt (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Sports facilities

Hi, John Carter. I am attempting to revive WP:WikiProject Sports facilities and see that you have made some contributions relative to this project in the past. Consider yourself invited to stop by the Project and contribute to getting it back up and running. Best wishes. --Gwguffey (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the additions to the Supreme Court wikiproject. That was very helpful. Remember (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Memories

Hi came across the lack of tags on charismatic christianity project category pages and thought id ask you - is it better to have the larger project christianity tag with the sub ref to charsimatic - or is it ok to use the CharismaticWikiProject tag - saw your comment at talk at the charismatic project which looked as though no one had asnswered you in january :) SatuSuro 01:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest parts of that area look like a jungle :) - the possibility of overlaps between various denominational and other issues would probably be much safer just to lump em under the larger christianity project i think - thanks for your speedy - cheers - and in the tibetan buddhist sense - may you be well SatuSuro 01:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zeuspitar‎

John, can you please record your view on this page please? Wikidās-ॐ 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This too shall pass

John, would you please take a look at that article? I've tagged it for having multiple issues that need cleaning up. I'd like relevant projects to be able to see it, but I'm not sure where to categorize it (Category:Bible verses or Category:Jewish folklore maybe? not sure that first possibility would be accurate) I thought you might have a better idea. Aleta ^Sing 16:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

semi protect request

hello John ,i want to ask for a long term semi protect for the Eye color article,though this may seem like non controversial article,it's being bombarded with with vandalism and random changes by isp's that are destroying any integrity the article might have,its geting hard to keep up with it--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Parisal/theppa

Hey John,

I reckon there is enough of Karnataka VS Tamil Nadu war of words and edits on wikipedia already. I do not think we want any more article that way. Both are just the same in respective languages. Other than my thoughts on taking both to coracle a seperate article on Hide boats of India or Coracles of India can be made which can mention that these boats are called parisal in Tamil Nadu and theppa in Karnataka. What do you think? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 22:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

John, I do like to be bold, but in the process, like I said in the talk page of Hogenakkal, I can be found guilty of ad hominem. I would rather leave it to other people to do that move. It is really funny to me that not too long ago I was called Kannada fanatic and now with Hogenakkal I guess I would end up being called a Tamil fanatic. Not that it bothers me, but kinda painful indeed. Enough of me grumbling, getting back to the boats, I guess its best to leave a message on the coracle page too, since editors there may help us with some good advice on it. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 22:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD: Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs

I have nominated Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs for deletion as suggested. Please comment and support/oppose the nomination there. Thanks --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 01:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zeuspitar‎ - complete

John, Thank you for your instruction. I have updated the page as discussed. I have previously attempted an informal mediation and posted on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts so I have no other way. If you find that any of the comments he made are against the policy please note. Wikidās-ॐ 20:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Its a complicated process. It seems I have two editors who endorse the summary. I would imagine thats sufficient to move the case to the second approved cases part[7]. Its interesting in the approved section, nobody put their name on the first case line. Do I really need it? Wikidās-ॐ 21:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How long does the process take? Will I be able make a comment myself ones its out there? Wikidās-ॐ 12:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin action requested

I would request you to put your firm put forward and put an end to the continuous nitpicking and stalling moves perpetrated by Wikiality and Sunshine in the Hogenakal Falls page. Uninvolved editors have done a good job to come up with a consensus which has been agreed upon by many people including yourself. Its time that the lead section as edited by SheffieldSteel is moved over to the main article. We cannot allow two people with one inconclusive document in hand to act as a barrier to a sane and reasonable solution. Please put an end to it. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask Amarrg to clarify, which of the following he or his team thinks is inconclusive?

Law Ministry

Encyclopædia Britannica

Economic Times

Times of India

Just to point out to Amarrg that before he and Sarvagnya joined at the talk page, there was a consensus reached which was opposed only by Naadapriya. When we had the manners and guts to take it to RfC, why is this party shying away from it? Ciao Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish to add this citation to Wiki San Roze

NDTV (New Delhi Television Limited) , i wish the Law Ministry report is more clear about the nations stand whereas the one produced otherwise are just state a single state's stand and not the nation as a whole . regards :--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

kindly remove the editing ban on "Talk:Hogenakkal Falls"

dear John Carter : kindly try to remove the editing ban on "Talk:Hogenakkal Falls" , this like attempt will keep off any new editor to work on ,with too many references with us and with null on the other side we waited for a long time for the discussion to progress in a civil way and were giving any possible replies and citation's to the queries ...but with two new citations that too not concerning the nations view but one sided only one states view he tries to not only ignore other editors but even prevents others from doing co which looks like this . so i wish you to do something that will permit us to discuss the same . regards :--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

many thanks for tht explanation buddy...wiki admin is superb..you people r really working hard to keep it amazing ...regards:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

once again many thanks for your reply... i just got confused a bit with the sudden tag on the talk page and being a newbie i was unable to understand the style and place that edit ban request woul-ieffect..and onceagain a good work from the other admin from his part . regards:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

yup buddy you are right ...this ( "Request to Editors: please do not add comments to this section. This section is only for Admn. Add your comments in new section. Adding comments here except for Admn will be disruptive.") sentence confused me a lot ...thanks for the explanation and for bringing me out of a mirage . regards:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing geo directory

Remember our little conversation a few weeks back about generating missing article pages for the wikirpojects. Lo and behold it has begun but with the use of a BOT (thank the lord). Have a look through some fo the already created pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places. Naturall the blue links will have to be checked and dabbed properly as when they are created the bot will bypass blue links. Can I count on your support and help with dabbing? It will be gradual but we need to ensure the bot has a clear run and doesn't overlook anything ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey you never thanked me!!! Thank the bot but ignore the manual guy who is going to dab and assess all of these places manually!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC) ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe thanks John I was kidding of course!. I know you fully appreciate me and I also feel the same way about your work also, thanks. Already the bot has done something which we've wanted for months in that it is generating a complete catalogue of missing articles which would have taken a huge amount to do manually. That alone is super news which we must thanks the ingenuity of Fritz for doing. But once it adds a possible 1.8 million articles and we have every place on the planet assessed and with an article this will be a magnificent achievement for wikipedia, imagine how it will look given time when more information becomes avialable and many places can be expanded fully, I really hope the bot gets approved asap so it can start. It would also mean that most of the geo articles on places have some level of consistency to start with and a standard infobox, map and reference which has always been a hiuge problem in the past and one in which I have been trying to address on a daily basis. It would mean years of editing time saved at just purely setting the articles up. I really think it is time the era of bots came into a greater function in creating articles in severely lacking areas. People have developed them so they clog our talk pages with 50,000 images but I want to see more examples of this happening in the mainspace to benefit the encyclopedia, kind of like RamBot did in the past but on a super scale run by several different editors in different areas of the project. It will be quite a task to dab all of the pages ready but quite small in relation to the main goal. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yuck. Something alarming has been identified. At present google maps recognize 28,000 places in India. The 2001 census indicates there are 638,000 settlements in India which is enormous. What would you suggest? The best we can do is fill in the missing articles that google recognises I think but we may need to see if there is a source for India. I can't think why so many places aren't covered. I can't even begin to imagine what the toal number of places actually is. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean 28,000 articles on Indian towns would be super in itself but what seems strange is that Pakistan has 78,000 places on google maps in comparison. You'd think even if many were missing it would be the other way round. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Well I;ve lost count of how many times I've showed google to be hugely incomplete which is understandable in the way that wikipedia is. I believe we are using that US site as a primary source anyway, but using maplandia for guidance on subdivisions. However when Fritz gets to India it will be interesting to see what is listed on that site and whether it corresponds to google maps. I seriously doubt all 638,000 settlements would have claim to a full encyclopedia article. I'd imagine this includes a huge amount of hamlets or dwellings which may not qualify for an article although as you know I am open as much as possible on what could be written in. It will be interesting to see what Ganeshk has to ay about Indian census statistics as where possible the bot could be creating articles with a lot more referenced data than the standard if the sources can be found. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC) John you'd think that with satellite details on these places there must be a public domain image bank of satellite images of these places. I was editing some Congo articles the other day and it had a load of satellite images which wer epublic domain -some of them zoomed in so you could at least make out the outline of buildings. NASA is bound to have images of many places. Any ideas for sources for images? It may be a while before we can get photographs of mos tplaces from the ground but I find any image of a place useful ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Something like this but with "2.12 million" images ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

why good citations not on discussions ??

dear John Carter : i wish to know why google earth (for - 12°6′54″N 77°46′33″E )which shows the exact location of hogenakkal falls has been ignored and these citations ( http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3910799 ,http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/feb102005/445.pdf ) too have no value in the discussion page . are these citations not exact / verifiability test proved falls / doubtful or not fit for wikipedia . even the law ministry reference has been underestimated ...regards:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus wanted.

Dear John, you were recently contributing to articles that are in the scope of the new project and to the project structure itself which is very very much appreciated! I thought you may want to check the proposal of merger and cast your vote in relation of the additional section to the main article. Thanks. --Wikidās-ॐ 14:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Scope, update and voting Whats new at Krishna's project Wikipedia:WikiProject Krishnaism - whats new and happening! Discussion on the scope of the project: Krishna-worship. First DYK of he project Radha Ramana 22nd May 2008 Pages under construction Radha Krishna, Bala Krishna, Krishnaism. Consensus is now reached on the proposal of merger of the new article Krishna Vasudeva into a separate section of Krishna here: Please note the results of the vote on the proposal of merging new article on early worship of Krishna Vasudeva to the main article dedicated to the Hindu deity Krishna. Krishna Vasudeva may have been worshiped in 4 century BC as a monotheistic deity. This article is to be incorporated in a separate section of Krishna article. Also, if you are ready to help with editing and assessment of the scope, please see the project page, and add your name to the list of participants. While the name of the project is WikiProject Krishnaism in common language many seems to prefer a wider term "Vaishnavism", which however appeared to relate to Vishnu. Krishnaism is more of an academic term. On the other hand even one of the first Indologists to use the term, Albrecht Weber was to consider that that the essence of Krishnaism, bhakti or the principle of "God is love", was pre-Christian. There were and are many traditions where Krishna is worshiped and His names revered. There was a discussion (and a heated one) on the scope of the project and the term here. Currently the scope is quite wide and aims at improving articles related to Radha-Krishna and associated traditions where they are worshiped: Manipuri Vaishnavas, Bhagavata, Gaudiya Vaishnava, Nimbarka sampradaya, Swaminarayana sampradaya, Vallabha sampradaya; If you see a need to widen or restrict the scope please voice your opinion - it is wanted! Just leave a few words here.

Mrs. P. Scores GA

I am happy to report that Pontius Pilate's wife received WP:GA status. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the banner project

You have inspired me to add as many references as I can from legtimate reference sources. I have an extensive Chatholic reference library, and the books are from all sides of the various issues. Thanks again for doing the banner project. Jason3777 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks!!!

Long time!!! I missed you! It's been tough, but we did it... Thank you for the great help!!!! There's some little work to do, and it's done... Oh and I forgot something, one minute! Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		John Carter is hereby awarded this Original Barnstar, for his tireless efforts to make this encyclopedia better. He is undoubtedly one of the best editors on Wikipedia. His terrific work, courtesy, willingness to help and improve, and extremely civil behaviour should act as a reference guide for all aspiring Wikipedians. That's because of editors like you that this project is still going strongly. Have no words, all I can say is thank you. Thank you for being part of Wikipedia. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 15:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WIki halo

The Wiki-halo Its funny John but I was also about to give you this award for the multiple assets you give to this encyclopedia. Not only do I greatly appreciate your help and overlooking of the various disputes you've been involved in and somehow managing to keep a cool head, particularly with the Preity Zinta and related issues, but you have earned a great deal of respect from your fellow editors and advice that you give. Aside from this you have put in a huge amount of work "behind the scenes" towards improving the organization and system of the encyclopedia which people should be in debt of gratitude for. Cheers and thankyou for being an honorable wikipedian in this community. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your're welcome. I came here thinking that you had gone unnoticed and unthanked but I know how much time you have also spent towards discussing it and supporting us as far back as October and you;ve been through it as much as any of us. Your're input into many issues even on a daily basis is always treasured. You must have devoted hours in total to participating in discussions to try to solve seemingly trivial issues which others think are a major problem and at the peak of debates with difficult situations (and other editors) you always show exemplary behaviour when most editors would have felt like strangling the other person down the cables!!! . You are always appreciated so a barnstar cannot really express what I think, and its probably reciprocated.

Now onto Bot matters the 100 trial will be done tonight. Perhaps you might want to contact Fritz and discuss more about the wikiproject tagging, Best wishes ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if it can be done automatically it would be silly if you would have to tag 1.8 million articles that are planned maually. I tried to negotiate some sort of Mongolian assessment system with Latebird but once again I feel like whenever somebody tries to make a point it like he is saying "How dare you interfere in our affairs". Kazakhstan and the rest of the central asian countries need assessing too but he seems to be under the impression that at least 100 editors need to be working on the project first before they are assessed. Anyway have a look at some of the latest images of Juba, Sudan, Dourtenga, Rumbek, Port Sudan, Malakal. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hogenakkal Falls

many thanks for tht inclusion , i wanna read the changes uv made and will sure post my comments....many thanks for your presence....regards:--@ the $un$hine (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

How does one indeed unblock a blockhead?

You're a trooper, John! Actually only when I'd imposed what I thought was a due self-monitory punishment for saying what WP:CIVIL says one should never say, did I realize the technical entanglements that might arise from a self-block (is there a precedent?). I.e. I wondered whether indeed I had not usurped an exclusive prerogative (is that a pleonasm?) of administrators, and therefore ran the risk of further sanctions for brazen-faced assumption of authority I did not in fact have. Again, having done so, put myself on block, can I once more hijack admin functions, by arrogating to myself the right to unblock myself? The Greeks called it hybris and one might well expect a bureaucratic nemesis. I left some textual leeway to a proper administrator to lengthen my condign punishment, were it thought a snarky little attempt to game the system. When troubled by these things, I return to browse the classics, and I happened to read in Mencius the other day, the following text:-

'恥之於人大矣。為機變之巧者，無所用恥焉。不恥不若人，何若人有？(孟子:盡心上.7)',
which Legge translated:-
'The sense of shame is to a man of great importance. Those who form contrivances and versatile schemes distinguished for their artfulness, do not allow their sense of shame to come into action. When one differs from other men in not having this sense of shame, what will he have in common with them?'

Weber's classic analysis of dignity in Confucianism, as opposed to Puritan conscience, has made me suspect that my cultural embedding in the latter should not allow me here to use what is an outrider of our secularised Christian conscience, instrumental rationality, in order to find a pretext for wiggling out of the impasse. Once again, one takes a leaf out of another culture's code, and therefore I will forego any 'versatile contrivances' (echoes of the incipit of the Odyssey, however, in that phrasing!) and serve out the full term of my shame. Could I then, say on June 1, prevail upon your goliardic spirit to get me off the hook, i.e. save me from the hybris of a potential exercise of a non-existent right to unblock myself (not being an administrator)? Either that, or, perhaps you know some graduate from HP's Hogwarts who can wave the magic wand that will waive the virtual rules by which I have suspended myself? Best as always Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• ps.Actually, it is a little known fact but a Harry Potter was shot dead outside of Hebron in a skirmish in 1939, and thus is an appropriate mascot for I/P articles.Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I've made an inadvertent gaffe is referring to HP. Request extension of suspension a further day. Let's settle on June 2 as the dies liberationis. Best Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot

Check the new pages it works!!!!! I counted 13 articles in one minute. All it needs now is to be flagged and sealed for approval. A number of NPP's were alarmed by it ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Suddenly we went from 187 articles to 285 in a few minutes .... ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey I really mean that :)

Hey you're welcome! This sentence "should act as a reference guide" -- I heard that somewhere and I think it's the best way to describe your work. I wanted to ask you something. From what we see in the sources about Zinta's graduation, English Honours is her Bachelor's degree, and criminal psychology is the Master's (English - undergrad; Psy - postgrad).

Girolamo suggested to rewrite it like this: "she graduated college with an English honors degree, and then started a graduate program in criminal psychology." Does that sound good according to you?

And how do you think we should describe that in the lead? Because as of now it only mentions the crim psy degree. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A little shiny object

		The Indian Cinema Barnstar
		Awarding of barnstars for the Priety Zinta article is not complete without you getting one. Please accept this little shiny object from me. It's a shame that I haven't met you earlier. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RS for Religious sources

On this talk page we are discussing the following comment:

These primary sources are interpreted by the author, the interpretations can be regarded as WP:OR. A citecheck for these refs is needed. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This falls under discussion on RS for religion related articles and the question is an open one, I would appreciate comments by others:

Secondary sources by religious teachers

Most of sources above fall under this category and deal with the traditional views of the sect - they were discussed and they fall under the kind called "Writings by sectarian leaders/teachers." (as in the discussion referred in the links above). As per consensus of the board: "These sources can be useful to express the sect's own views of itself and the world. However great care should be taken that these opinions are carefully attributed." There are a number of conditions under which they are to be used as per above * quoted discussionon the board - it appeared to have received a WP:consensus.

However it would be important to have a second opinion on use of the sectarian sources to support views of a particular sect, be it Christian, Muslim or Vaishnava. Especially if the article is about (as for example this one) a concept that is formulated by a sect. It would be useful to conclude on it as to avoid unnecessary tagging.

In essence they merely illustrate the particular view help within particular religious interpretation as a POV in WP:YESPOV. I do not think you can just dismiss all the writings as they are all WP:V. Let me know what other editors think and if this WP:V material should be removed.

Obvious if it is not WP:V material it should be removed. If the sects opinion is taken out of context its should be noted and removed again.

Primary Sanskrit sources as translated by religious/sectarian teachers.

There is a number of such quotes above and they are typical on all Hinduism related works, mainly because of the different media.

If reference is to a Sanskrit slokas which is necessary if you talk about a Sanskrit term, as is the case in this article on Svayam bhagavan do we need to show a context of the sectarian text as per above where they were taken from? Again opinion is sought on inclusion of this type to achieve the consensus. I understand that this is English encyclopedia and a care should be taken to avoid use of Sanskrit in the main text, but I can not see any harm in retaining actual Sanskrit in the footnotes, let me know what you think.

We all know that secondary sources are better, but its not an absolute necessity for all the material, as far as I understand.

Wikidās ॐ 15:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You have suggested:

I might suggest changing it to something like (this is not a finalized proposal) "Svayam bhagavan is a Sanskrit theological term. It has been translated in various ways into English. ..." It would be useful to note which traditions use the phrase most frequently, to help ensure that the existing lead content emphasizing Krishna is reflective of due weight. If it isn't, then the references in the lead to Krishna could be moved in a separate section on Krishna as svayam bhagavan, and include other sections on other avatars as svayam bhagavan; such sections do not yet seem to exist, but might be the most reasonable way of organizing the article. The last sentence/paragraph of the lead is almost certainly removable, as I believe that material is already included elsewhere. I also question, although I can't be sure, inclusion of sections of Sanskrit text in the English language wikipedia, as very few people reading this article will actually know a single word in those sections, including me. For all I know, there might be in it a very rude statement about the mother of the person reading the article; it doesn't really enhance the understanding of the subject at all. I could be wrong, of course. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

John, I would appreciate if you can comment on 1) Secondary sources in the religious denomination context. 2) Primary sources referring to foreign language footnotes. 3) Use of the translation of the no.2 as they are published by the religious teachers. Thank you. Wikidās ॐ16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

May I intrude here & suggest it's important to be very careful about the concept of "sect"? Most major religious groups are nothing like as monolithic as the Roman Catholic Church. For such groups, a source belonging to the group is not in general a reliable source of information for the beliefs of the group as a whole. On the other hand, if a group can be correctly described as a sect, that probably doesn't apply. Peter jackson (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reply isn't to the main point I was making here, tho' of course it's valid & important enough in its own context. The main point I was making was that, generally speaking, religious sources are not reliable sources for the beliefs of anyone other than their actual authors, unless those authors can be clearly established to be official spokespersons. Peter jackson (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is something I come across all the time in Buddhism. Lots of people think all they have to do is cite a Buddhist writer as the source for WP statements about Buddhist teachings. (Sometimes they even do it for historical statements.) They often don't even realize there are disagreements between different schools of Buddhism, let alone within them. When I try to explain this & that we should cite scholars they say scholars are outsiders who don't understand Buddhism properly. That may be true, tho' in fact about 1/4 of the scholars are openly Buddhist & it's estimated a similar number keep quiet about it for fear their neutrality might be impugned. Anyway, I then have to explain again. It all gets rather tiresome. It might be nice if this were explained more clearly in the guidelines. Perhaps I should raise it there, tho' one might have thought someone else would have done so already. Peter jackson (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Coracles of India

Hi John, I have merged the articles what were formally parisal and teppas into the above. Please have a look if you find time and may be think of a good DYK hook. The article has been indeed expanded more than 5 folds. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)