User talk:John Carter

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Somewhat different from dishwashing liquid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:NA-importance_Cosmology_articles - there is something glitchy in the tamplate areas for this project - the third category of the red type on the right hand side seems to indicate something odd. your help to fix would be appreciated. satusuro 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your help there...it seems to be fine there now satusuro 23:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Importance versus Priority

Hello! I hope I didn't offend you here. I was not concerned about how to assess biograhies, only about the use of Importance versus Priority in doing so, where guideline looks like it's being disregarded by some people almost to an extreme. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Asked a question on my talk. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Unclarity

What I meant to say is that nobody was going to believe that NYB would be able to not think about Wikipedia during his well-deserved break. Seeing that two consecutive users took it completely the wrong way, the removal is probably for the best. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Je suis Charlie

Good template, thanks. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Tell me more

P.S. Also, when the bot finishes the assessment, you might want to transclude Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Cosmology articles by quality statistics into the main project page to indicate more clearly the current status of the relevant articles.

Please tell me more about that. I'm kinda confused Tetra quark (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tetra quark: The bot that updates assessment criteria should be able to generate something like the similar Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Astronomy articles by quality statistics page, the next time it runs for the cosmology project. A lot of projects transclude the chart into the main project page as an indicator of the current status of the tagged articles. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that table. So, how long until the bot updates the assessment critera? Tetra quark (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That's up to the schedule of the bots, but I think the rate of recent changes at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Cosmology articles by quality log page would indicate it should probably be done sometime on January 9. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral notification

You previously voted, opined, commented, or otherwise took part, at Template talk:Succession box#RfC. Please see a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Kraxler (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Daisaku Ikeda

Hi John. In the article mentioned above there is, yet again, a discussion about Polly Toynbee’s comment on meeting Daisaku Ikeda (Currently the article as a whole is protected, originally for a period of two weeks). Some go as far as bringing up copyright issues – which I doubt there is a case for. Personally I now think of composing a section with more or less large quotes of the article with a footnote and no online link. I do wonder now if there are any means to firmly attach such a section i.e. having a protection fixed to a section only. Do you have alternative proposals? --Catflap08 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is any way to protect just a section of an article. Having said that, some of the existing quotes could be shortened a little. The material sourced from citation 128 looks good, but the first half of the sentence used for 129 and 130, the part that ends before the "but I have never..." could easily be paraphrased and not lose impact. The final quotation for citation 130 could I suppose also be paraphrased if required, with the full quote included in the citation note. I honestly can't see any valid reason for saying that there might be a copyright violation, and the "better source needed" tag I guess might make sense, but might also be stretching things a wee bit. I don't know Hoary that well, or have any clear information about whether his view of copyvio is accurate, but I think Dougweller has some familiarity with copyright issues and I can drop a message to him to ask him to review it. And he lives in the UK, so he might have access to the originals somehow. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well the full article or rather a copy of it can be found here (Polly Toynbee - The Value of a Grandfather Figure). I just have the impression that some would like the article or quotes of it disappear which in turn is a call for to make it stay – but stay with enough substance added. One could certainly have mixed feelings about Ms. Toynbee, but its her observation and keeping in mind it is also about her grandfather some in Tokyo could kick themselves for ever inviting her at the time. As for now it is one of the few critical first hand reports in English.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Remove the toride link and explained at the talk page. "Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement." Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This in turn is a rather nice oppertunity to quote and cite from the article at greater length. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification

There is a request for clarification in which you are named here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Landmark_Worldwide.2FR6_Additional_eyes_invited DaveApter (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)