User talk:John Carter

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Introducing the new WikiProject Ghana!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Ghana! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 3,474 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in Ghana.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Thank you for your kind comments about my Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia, at my appeal request to work on Quality improvement for an article I'd previously brought to WP:GA quality, Typewriter in the Sky. You didn't have to go over there and put yourself on the line like that and comment on my behalf, but you did anyways, and I thank you for it. I'll continue to strive to better Wikipedia by engaging in the Quality improvement process, and bring articles to WP:GA and WP:FA quality. I'll work with my mentor The Rambling Man and do my best to learn from his example and guidance. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Cirt, believe me when I say that you don't have much that you need to learn from anyone around here, and I sincerely hope that the Arbs come to realize that soon. Your contributions are some of the most consistently impressive we have around here, and it is an honor to be able to help out in a small way someone who has done as much as you have, over as long as you have been here, and still has the spirit and drive to improve this site that you have. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, John Carter. I hope, in time, your views regarding my Quality improvement efforts will be shared by more editors within our Wikipedia community. Hopefully someday. :) But for now, I'll go back to attempting to improve the articles that I can — to higher levels of quality including WP:GA and WP:FA. If you've got any advice on how to bring about the change in perspective you wish for, above, John Carter, I'd appreciate it. — Cirt (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1068 of
Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom reform proposal

Just thinking here. Maybe one way to revise things might be to create an umbrella entity, perhaps a Dispute Resolution Committee, which might be eligible for election.

At least in my eyes, one of the big reasons for the problems of the ArbCom last year was that both User:Newyorkbrad and User:Kirill Lokshin were gone, and there were no immediately obvious replacements for them. User:Doug Weller and User:DGG, the two members of the board who would at least strike me as being the leading candidates for the sage positions vacated by those two, were both new that year, and, given the greatly reduced number of cases lately, it took a while for them to know the ropes and the others to learn how they work. The reduced caseload and possible/probable loss of institutional memory with the loss of old hands could well have been one of the big problems then.

I know a hell of a lot less about MedCom and other entities, but I think maybe one way to ensure that we don't lose the institutional memory aspect might be to create a DRC from which the arbs for any individual case can be drawn. Granted, I don't expect Brad to want to join every case after retirement, God knows I wouldn't want to, but it could very easily be very beneficial for the other members of the committee to have access to him for a particular case, maybe even in a "rotating chair" or something like that.

So, as a sort of proposal, have elections every year to elect a largish number of members of DRC or similar. Say, for instance, 60 members. All qualified editors are welcome to sign a predetermined number of petitions for candidates, up to and including "draft" petitions, and those which get sufficient signatures are on the ballot. Then, allow each qualified editor to vote, preferably for only a smaller number of candidates, for instance 30. The top 60 votegetters are determined, and then those 60 individuals cast the final, deciding, public votes for who are the 12 individuals on the "standing" ArbCom, MedCom, ArbCom clerks, AE enforcers, and the like. I figure only about half of those 60 would actually get "standing" positions, which is really what I would want. This would give the bottom 30 finishers a chance to maybe take one a case or two to see if they really want to do that. preferably with the help of an old hand, and maybe more actively seek a "standing" position in a following year if they want to take that role on regularly.

But, if all 60 were, at least theoretically, capable of filling any of the positions for a given year, we might have a much better chance of avoiding the discontinuity of community memory and leadership which I think happened when Kirll and Brad left the ArbCom.

Anyway, any ideas? John Carter (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• 1) Arb com is complicated enough already.. We should be looking at procedures to simplify the process.

2) Perhaps I have a prejudice here, but the difficulties last year were not due to lack of experience of myself or the other new people. If anything, perhaps there were last year altogether too many people on that committee whose long experience led them to an apparent commitment to entrenched ways of doing things; I at least certainly felt difficulty in getting an effective voice, especially in internal discussions. But the real difficulties were due to the unfortunate but unavoidable situation that several major cases had no really satisfactory solution. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, you, having been there and all, would probably know a hell of a lot more about it than me, who wasn't there. :) But, maybe, the "entrenchment" you speak of might be a symptom of loss of earlier leadership, I dunno. Regarding simplification, I think in a sense this might be a bit simpler. One of the problems that several have commented on is that few people really read the questions to candidates, and the sometimes questionable nature of the questions, and act however they would anyway, generally based on possibly questionable opinion they have as outsiders to the system who know the system even less than well than I might. Creating a publicly seen final discussion among the electeds might make it easier for at least that select group to deal with what they might see as real issues involved. And, a proposal like this, of the House/Senate type, sort of, might be a bit easier for a lot of people in the US anyway to understand, although I admit it might be harder for non-US people or people who don't have a bicameral system to follow. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on your proposal: how are the 48 members not on the standing sub-committee "drawn" to participate in an arbitration committee task? Are you envisioning that for each task, be it a case, an appeal review, responding to incoming email, and so forth, that X number of people be drawn from the pool of 48, and added to those from the standing sub-committee who are also participating in the task? On a side note, I don't see how this relates to a bicameral system, where there are two separate deliberative bodies, and they act as a balance for each other. (Unless you are suggesting that any task be replicated by the standing sub-committee and the rest of the larger committee, independently?) This is more like an organization forming a sub-committee with a set of standing members and a set of rotating guest members. isaacl (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

First, I think it worth noting that the proposed board is where not only the ArbCom itself would be drawn from, but also maybe the MedCom, the Arb clerks, the regular AE enforcers, and other similar functionaries be drawn from. Basically, if something like this were done, the 60 or so would elect all the holders of those positions, which would probably be about 30 or so people. The other 30 who aren't selected and haven't yet filled such functions could, at request, if they wanted to, maybe ask to take part in specific processes (individual Arb cases, Med cases, clerking for a single case, etc.) which more or less requires selection of some sort, as either an observer or additional member of the "team", under the supervision of an existing "team" member to see if they might think they want to more actively seek such a post in the future. And, yeah, you're right, it is more like legislative committee appointments and officer selection than a bicameral legislature. John Carter (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional clarification of your ideas. From your description, it sounds more like a pool of alternate members, or a pool of apprentices. isaacl (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Isidor Sauers - skeptic?

I was just casting around for things to clean up and fix in Wikiproject Skepticism, and I noticed the article Isidor Sauers. WAY back in October 2007 you tagged into the project (here's the diff: [1]). I'm just curious - why? I've pored over the current state of the article and done some Googling of this fellow and I can't for the life of me figure out his connection to Skepticism. Apologies in advance if I'm missing something obvious here. --Krelnik (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Krelnik: I'm guessing the article has been changed a bit since then, maybe. That page is currently included in the Category:Scientific skepticism, and that was probably the reason for the tagging, but it might be that the content supporting for that categorization has been perhaps removed. John Carter (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, but I dug around in the article history, and I can't find any "smoking gun" removals of text that might explain it. Here is what the article looked like the day you tagged it. Ah well, just one of those mysteries I guess. --Krelnik (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Alejo Carpentier and WikiProject African diaspora

Hi John Carter, Just wondering why you added Alejo Carpentier to the list of articles "belonging" to wp:WikiProject African diaspora and rated it importance=Top on 22 August 2012? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, John Carter. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump difficulties

The Donald Trump article will be an extremely hard article to bring up to average Wikipedia standards, not to mention GA or FA. It will probably involve much fighting and many months. Either that or one group of people will wear out the other 2-3 groups. Compounding the problem is that Trump is very controversial. About 52% of people voting did not want him. Another 25% had negative feelings toward him even though they voted for him. That leaves maybe 20% that either support him a little or a lot, 80% don't like him or viciously hate him.

I feel it is beyond my expertise to fight a talk page battle so I will leave it to more experienced hands like you (or 3 others that I wrote to). Below is a link to my sandbox, which shows an edited version that does 3 things. 1. It fixes the jumping back and forth of related areas that are placed apart (there's quite a bit of that). 2. Trims down some trivia. 3. The lead represents a better summary and also is the permitted 4 paragraphs. I did not edit the political and campaign sections yet and don't intend to.

Here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Usernamen1/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=754347721

Consider commenting on the Donald Trump talk page about this sample revision. I do not plan on extensive discussion on the talk page and will leave it up to you. Let me know what you think.

Disclaimer: I am a foreigner and not a registered Republican or Democrat. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Your help in a Catholic saint article

Dear sir I had made a request for TFA of Mother Teresa i have seen it has a multiple of issues and I have seen it has been removed from Good article list also I request your help in the article as I find u more helpful in making the article great in a Catholic topic --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 07:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

German Wikipedia

See my talk page - I got tipped off - and here in Die Welt. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

And a happy new year as well JarrahTree 23:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC) You may well be semi retired - I think of full retirement when I encounter some of the genius and sheer mindless perversity on this damned thing, but, you have always been there to help with the damned project tweaking, it is both appreciated and honoured - and may it serve you well sir ! (I am sure that it channelling a John Lennon line, but damned if I can remember from where ) JarrahTree 23:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I am far from being an everyday editor here like a lot of others are, which is a form of retirement, and am also trying to develop wikisource on my own, and, maybe, talking others into it, which reduces the amount of time I spend here. And I thank you for your very kind words above. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional thanks

Thanks for your comment at EP. I'm always glad to hear that I'm not totally off-base. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop following me, please

John Carter, could you leave me alone? Please? Your logging in for the first time in four days[2] in order to post a non-sequitur disagreement with me on a page you followed me to last year[3] and hadn't otherwise edited since 2014[4] after a two-month absence, and showing up on another page you hadn't edited since 2014[5][6] makes it pretty obvious you are watching my edits. By my count you've made between three and four extended Wikibreaks in the last year, and after all but one of them your first or second action upon coming back was to go after me or someone you perceive to be "friendly" with me. You have been repeatedly cautioned by admins to leave me alone, and if you continue with the current pattern I will ask User:Drmies to have another word with you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hijiri, come on. I'm not the principal. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: First, I believe it is appropriate that the not-unexpected borderline hysterical rant above is a clear violation of a mutual ban of both of us from each other's talk pages, and on that basis well deserving of sanctions, as indicated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#John Carter continuing to post on my talk page despite repeated warnings not to. I am myself disgusted and more than a bit repulsed by the at least borderline monomaniacal paranoia which Hijiri88 rather regularly displays. And I note Hijiri's own failure to perhaps admit that the "stalking" to attributed to me on the WT:BIBLE page was itself rather clearly perhaps only second to your perhaps "stalking" me at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, where you posted la ink to your discussion at the Bible project talk page as the next edit after I attempted to open up discussion on a matter which had been raised to me by others. I also noted your apparent failure to recognize that the WikiProject Bible talk page is mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, which I have previously indicated I check rather regularly. I have no doubt at this point that you, Hijiri88, are a rather pathologically self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing, paranoid, like a lot of other conspiracy theorists. In your case, the conspiracy you seem to be so devoutly attached to is that the world is "out to get you" here at the WMF, and you seem to be willing to grossly misrepresent reality if you think that such misrepresentation might lead to your somehow getting your way. You seem to have few few if any reservations about attempting to misrepresent reality for the purpose of promoting your own beliefs. But, I believe, that has gone on for long enough, and, on that basis, request a block of you for your violation of the in-place ban from posting on my talk page, which was asserted at ANI earlier, and for which, as per that discussion, the sanctions are a minimum of a one-month ban.

Also, bluntly, User:Hijiri88, I guess I am forced to say this. I have extremely serious questions regarding your basic competence as an editor, largely because at least one of the first contacts I have ever had regarding you was with a senior editor who also indicated that there were very serious questions regarding your basic competence, and the fact that I have since then myself seen little if anything to indicate otherwise. On that basis, I believe the consensus around here is that such behavior is not "stalking". You have been directly told to stay off this page, but, given your rather remarkable lack of self-control, which has I think also been repeatedly mentioned to you, you refused to do so. At this point, pardon me for saying, I see no point in "talking" to you, because you seem to be more interested in some kind of self-promotion than in building an encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Need input on a Maldivian name

Hi! I need someone who has access to some decent sources for the geography of the Maldives to resolve a question at Talk:Inguraidhoo (Raa Atoll)#Requested move 5 January 2017. Thanks for whatever light you can shed on it! — Gorthian (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)