User talk:John Carter
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
| This is John Carter's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 2011 |
wikipedia essay contest
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.
Time Times (2008-03)
|
Time Times |
|
| Issue One • March 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. | ||
Happy First Day of Spring!
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Have you taken a look at Portal:Scientology/Wikimedia?
The logo's for each image are extremely expanded. I saw that you were the first one to edit it; but it's been messed up since that time. I think you should take a look at it. Lighthead þ 0:21, March 25 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm not even part of that project but I was just browsing... Lighthead þ 0:32, March 25 2008 (UTC)
Time Times (2008-04)
|
|
Time Times |
|
| Issue Two • April 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. | ||
thank spam
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky |
Time Times (2008-05)
|
|
Time Times |
|
| Issue Three • May 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. | ||
WP:X Elections
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Time Times (2008-06)
|
|
Time Times |
|
| Issue four • June 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. | ||
Article about Khomeini
This article has been written by an agent of mullahs! There is not even one sentence on mass execution of political prisoners by Khomeini! There is nothing on violation of women's rights e.g. compulsory hijab. Female judges were forced to give up their jobs such as Shirin Ebadi...in islamic court, mullahs consider 2 women equal to one man! women can't even have an operation without the permission of their father/husband!
mullah even banned western music!
mullahs hang homosexuals & stone those who commit adultery!
those who convert from islam to any other religion will be executed!
Khomeini was behind the Cinema Rex fire, which led to the death (burning alive!) of approx. 500 people! most of your references are biased, they are taken from the islamic regime's sources e.g. poetry!! Khomeini couldn't even speak properly, let alone writing a poem!
I rename this article and I will add references. I have some questionst about it: 1. does references on Serbian language are good as references on English. I ask it because there is much more literature on Serbian church on Serbian than on any other language. 2. how many references are best for lists (one reference for every line or something different)?
AfD nomination of Garrison Courtney
Garrison Courtney, an article that you contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. The nominator does not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrison Courtney. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns.
Comment on WikiProject organization
Rather than post on the WikiProject I thought I would bring my comment directly to you. I have found that the better functioning projects have strong editors/administrators who actively work at organizing and maintaining the project. Military is a great example to use because they have coordinators assigned not just to the Project, but to each of its Task Forces/Work Groups. I think you may find yourself frustrated trying to set up a similar structure in the Christianity project with so many different opinions and personalities. I wish you all the best because it is long over due; I just hope you don't get frustrated in the effort. -- Absolon S. Kent (chat), 14:49, Sunday, November 3, 2024 (UTC)
Ancient Egypt
The banner: {{AncientEgyptBanner}}
Does not really work as it should. Importance is not displayed. Can this be fixed?--Secisek (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks much. You do enough around the projects you should have one of these:
|
Eye of Horus Award | |
| For help with the banner and much else, too. Secisek (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC) |
.
New userbox for Wikipedia:WikiProject Guatemala
I created {{User WikiProject Guatemala}} -- in case you wish to add it to your user page. -- Shunpiker (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Very nice of you to drop in a pay an old friend a visit hey? Why haven't you emailed or spoken? How are you? Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Roman Vandalism
I am contacting all the members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject City of Rome (what few there are) to let them know of the vandalism problems at the articles for the Roman forum and the Pantheon, Rome. I am no longer watching these pages as I am a little disgusted by Wikipedia's refusal to protect these pages after months of vandalism. At leat the Roman's had a way to deal with the vandals. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Daftah
A tag has been placed on Daftah, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. UAEPrivate (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Checking the "bad words" list for Version 0.7
Hi John, great to hear from you recently, and thank you for your kind offer to help read through hundreds of puerile attempts at humour. Wizzy has finally got a "diff" version of his list, which only lists "bad words" that have since been removed - it's still over 20,000 words, but that is much more manageable than 70,000. The list is available for download [here in zipped form. Please let me know if you're available to help, and then we can start divvying up the list. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC) John, we now have a project page to coordinate this effort. Please sign up if you can help. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Francis Lucille
Hi, I have found your username from the spirituality section. I need your help and suggestion. I am trying to add an article on one of the Living spiritual teacher. but,I am facing an problem.
The editors who have visited this page don't understand spirituality and they have tagged it for deletion. i need your help urgently. so they are trying to compare it with other biographies in the field of sports etc. As you know,the field the spirituality is not very commercial. so I am having a hard time convincing them. could you please help amd and take a look at article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Lucille http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Francis_Lucille.
Appreciate all your help.
Thanks
Amarhindustani
Amarhindustani (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Hi John, Had not seen you around for a while. Welcome back. Cheers History2007 (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Help with a WP please
Hi there. I noticed you created Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Bristol articles by quality back in 2007. I'm setting up Wikipedia:WikiProject Cardiff and was wondering if you could help me set up Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Cardiff articles by quality. I've had a look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team on how to set it up but it's not making any sense to me. I'd really appreciate your help. Thanks a lot Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thanks a lot for doing that. It's much appreciated. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back and notification
Hello, John: Welcome back. I hope that you are feeling much better.
Unfortunately, I am here to inform you that my most recent mentor, Shell Kinney, feels that her mentorship of me is unsuccessful and is no longer is willing to mentor me. Since my previous mentor (Ecoleetage) did not inform you that he had thought his mentorship no longer necessary and had withdrawn (prior to Shell's adopting me), and since you and others thought you needed to be informed of this change, I have reminded Shell that she perhaps needs to update you on her withdrawal ending her mentorship of me. In case she is too busy to do so, I am doing so here. --NYScholar (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) In case you need to examine it, to save you some time, I am providing some of the contexts; please see Shell's post on my [now-archived] talk page section Harold Pinter and MLA citations in general, replying to my recent request on her talk page (Urgent: Assistance requested (again)) (Re: linked talk page of 5 Feb. 2009), and the articles and talk page and archived talk pages Harold Pinter, Talk:Harold Pinter, Bibliography for Harold Pinter, Talk:Bibliography for Harold Pinter, The arts and politics, Talk:The arts and politics, Parenthetical referencing, The MLA Style Manual, The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, and Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC) [updated link for your convenience. --NYScholar (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)]
- Hi John; before seeing this I had put together an email to some of the others involved in the community ban discussion that resulted in this last attempt at mentorship. I have forwarded this email to you; if you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Since I am mostly inactive on Wikipedia at this time, I will respond to email considerably faster than my talk. Thanks. Shell babelfish 22:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Gos as the devil
Re. God_as_the_Devil,
There is an ongoing discussion in Talk:God_as_the_Devil#Quotations about whether or not a number of quotations should or shouldn't be included in the article. I see that you put a comment about this in another section, but wasn't quite sure of your meaning. As I have no expertise in the area, and feel it would be very helpful to get some input from other users. If possible, could you contribute your views in that section of the talk page?`
Many thanks, -- Chzz ► 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Template:Iglesia ni Cristo
Hi john carter,
I'm a little iffy about the template and I hope you can explain. Shouldn't it contain subject matter that support the Iglesia ni Cristo, as in the Roman Catholic template? The reason I didn't put the original template to the page was because there wasn't much to information. As it is now, most of the information you added do not even pertain to the Iglesia ni Cristo. Conrad940 (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
moved to Template:Iglesia ni Cristo Conrad940 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography
Talk:Tom_Cruise:_An_Unauthorized_Biography#Current_UK_publication_status - Could use your input and also researching capabilities here, if you could find any WP:RS sources on this. Cirt (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah I see you are already aware of it. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Would also appreciate your input at Talk:David_Miscavige#RSN and at Talk:David_Miscavige#Hawk_Radio.3F. Cirt (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Assessment of Martin Bucer
I replied on the Talk:Martin_Bucer#Christianity_importance_rating. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Thank you for your attempt at constructive comment. However, due to its lack of specifics the rationale is unclear. -- spincontrol 23:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Telling you that you could be blocked for continuing in the way you have was, I thought, clear enough. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Just want to say that I appreciate your ability to get on with and talk to both sides here. If we had more people in no-man's land, it would be easier for folks to give up sitting in trenches. Cheers, Jayen466 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, John! I wonder, would you be willing, or able, to revive a deleted article? I know you don't have one of those cute userboxes that say so, but I thought I'd ask since I know you, and not those other admins, haha. The article above was deleted for lack of notability. WP:UNIGUIDE asserts that all colleges and universities are notable, but it seems this one didn't have any sources (as if that were out of the ordinary, right?). I'd like to found out more and recreate it, but I'd like access to what once existed there. Let me know what you think. Cheers! --Aepoutre (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Haha, thanks. Good call; I agree now that it'd be much better to start from scratch. I never would've guessed that was the entirety of the article, haha! --Aepoutre (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Break
Hey, John, I'm taking a break. I wanted to ask you opinion on a couple of issues, since I feel rather inadequate as a non-admin running into admins and a few others who don't seem to be as serious about Wiki standards, guidelines, or civility as I do. I've had run-ins with User:Orlady before: [1] and most recently I've encountered this: [2] but can't seem to find "thoroughly discussed" on the talk page for the article. Maybe I've missed something, but it looks like the assumption that WP:VERIFY and use of diffs doesn't apply to all aspects of Wikipedia for some as it does for me. There are two other interesting run-ins recently with admins [3] and [4]. The reverted edits for the former are especially interesting because, if I seem to recall, an undo gives this message:
If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message.
It also looks to me as if I'm the only one in either situation [5][6] to use a talk page to discuss any of this; everyone else uses edit summaries with vague explanations and specious arguments, and I've just never felt comfortable disagreeing with admins (I suppose you could compare it to someone who feels harrassed by a boss in a work environment, haha!). Let me know what you think, and I'm going to go do something else for a while. Cheers! --Aepoutre (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, there. Thanks for your input. I honestly have no idea what came over me; just needed a break, I guess. I feel quite the fool now! It so odd because I'm usually the one displaying "professionalism" in disputes [7]. I really appreciate your kind words, John. It was stupid of me to even bother you with this crap! Cheers. --Aepoutre (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion
What do you think Talk:Óengus of Tallaght#Article name? Philly jawn (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello
How are you feeling? I've really missed you being on here. I knew it had to be serious. Does it mean you can't edit much anymore or do you think it will get any better? Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Well its great to have you back, keep in contact. You may be interested I've devised a little translation scheme see Category:Expand by language Wikipedia templates. They have been administered to many articles to bridge the gap betwene wikipedias. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Israel and wikiproject inclusion
I don't think one editor making a redirect so that a link doesn't look red on a template makes it definitive that the article to which it redirects to becomes part of the Wikiproject. People could be making redirects all over. I'm actually all for deleting that redirect. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done, albeit in a somewhat different way. Thanks for all your help in categorizing the pages. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thelema
Hi there,
Your contribution to God as the devil was very welcome; there is another dispute at the moment, regarding the neutrality of the article Thelema. The neutrality balance is under question; it's always better to get more input from others, so I wondered if you might be able to contribute your thoughts on the talk page of that article? The more people who can make comments, the better, as it makes reaching a consensus easier. Cheers! -- Chzz ► 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
recategorizations
Great work doing all the re-categorization uniting members and histories! Smkolins (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Starting Tips
Thank you for the starting tips I'm sure reading those will keep me busy for a while, but hopefully, I will get better at this wikithing Knosisophile (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC) The five pillars of Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page How to write a great article Manual of Style
Thank you!
Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and hope that I will be able to fulfill the community's expectations. – Joe N 01:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
|
Milhist Coordinator elections | |
| I wish to thank you for your gracious support during my bid for a position as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject in the recent March 2009 elections. I was initially apprehensive to stand for election as I was unsure on how well I would be received, but I am pleasantly surprised and delighted to have been deemed worthy to represent my peers within the project. I assure and promise you, I will strive to do my upmost to justify your trust in myself with this esteemed position. Thank you, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Soldiers of the 4th Australian Division crossing a duckboard track through Chateau Wood, Ypres on 29 October 1917. |
Undue weight
I don't agree with your assessment. If an issue occurs on the Jesus page then there enough editors to deal with it there. The very few editors who are part of the Baha'i wikiproject will not only play a small part, but their views will be undue weight on what happens on that page. In addition, the addition of Baha'i content on multiple pages has already come up in multiple locations including on the fringe noticeboard, and the decision there was that in many cases the Baha'i view was given too much prominence. Putting the Baha'i wikiproject in the same status as the Christianity or even Islam wikiproject on those pages doesn't help the situation. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not the one that decided that the Baha'i view was too predominant in pages not related to the Baha'i Faith; that's the multiple of editors who spoke of it in the Fringe views noticeboard. I'm trying to abide by that consensus, and not let it be a problem again. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not everything in the category tree has to be replicated in the Wikiproject, since that would be a duplication of effort. If it were the case, then the Wikiproject wouldn't need to tag everything since it could just use the category tree. The previous discussion was at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_9#Bah.C3.A1.27.C3.AD_Faith and continued at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion/Archive_2#Giving_.28un.29due_weight_to_religions and tracked at User:MARussellPESE/Treatment_of_Bahá'í_subjects_in_related_articles. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Ancient Germanic Studies template
Hello! I would like to remind you of the message I sent you back in August, which can be viewed here: Template_talk:WikiProject_Ancient_Germanic_studies. It would have been great if you had a look at it! I am not particularly skilled in template editing, so I would need your help to change anything if we establish a new consensus. –Holt (T•C) 18:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
None of My Edits To The Historicity of Jesus Article Are Vandalism
Statements like that of Richard Carrier's are unproven. Carrier has no evidence to back his claim, and neither do any of the other historians. From what they have said, Tacitus appears to have been sympathizing with the Christians and agreed to write their POV as part of Roman history. Tacitus likely did not do so at all. If you read about him, you will learn that he was a Roman historian and friend of Nero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.233.213 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Sir, what was POV is the writers content. It is not neutral. It is a violation of the NPOV policy to include such content on the article, and that's why I deleted it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.233.213 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I know what I'm doing I have not made any statements what-so-ever in POV form. If you the read remarks of the historians, and it suggests that Tacitus was doing so. R.T. France claims that Tacitus was only repeating what the Christians told him. He is insulting Jesus, and he was a Roman nationalist; therefore, in good faith, it is easy to assume it is not likely that Christians would have told him, nor is there anything to back his claim. Carrier also claims that it is unlikely that he would have done research or written about Jesus; there is nothing to back this POV remark either.
Carrier also argues that Pliny the Younger interrogated Christians to get the information; this too is an unproven statement, and it is unlikely that Christians would try to spread negative influence against Jesus, as Tactitus did. Guignebert is also arguing that it there is no possible way that Tacitus would have written the statement about Jesus unless Christians told him about it; that's also unproven nonsense, and again, Tactitus is not defending Jesus. Also, I ask of you what religious follower would want to spread negative influence about their holy figures? Also, please don't look at the previous edit, as I discovered it was not you who made the statement about me being offensive75.72.233.213 (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
That is exactly why the content should be removed. It is not verifiable. It is only a person's individual opinion, and not a valid argument.75.72.233.213 (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
|
I seem to have drawn a crowd of support! |
I'm honored to have been elected as a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and most sincerely thank you for your vote of support. I will endeavor to fulfill the obligations in a manner worthy of your trust. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC) | |
| A World War I U-boat draws a crowd after grounding on the Falmouth coast in 1921. |
It's ready for the public! It's not exactly what I had originally planned, but it will work. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Creating the Category:Reformed churches is goes against to all the intent and purpose of deleting the former Category:Reformed Church-- at least hoe you have use it.
- See here for the discussion.
- The main category for the "Reformed faith" is "Calvinism" since they are synonyms.
- Normally categories of the form Category:XXXXX churches are about the church buildings of that faith. See Category:Protestant churches for examples. So, do you want to convert the category to that or have the category deleted? --Carlaude (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- The difference, at least, is in the name they choose to use. I thought that was blindly obvious. "Reformed churches" call themselves that, not "Calvinist." By placing content in a category for "Reformed churches" it tends to make it more likely that anyone specifically interested in those churches would work on it. The comparatively undifferentiated "Calvinism" carries a much more theological than practical sense. And it is much harder to see how anyone interested in their church itself, whichever church that is, will try to find that content in a comparatively largeish category. In fact, the failure to separate them out might convey to them that their individual churches are, in a sense, insignificant, and that might do more to dissuade a potentially interested person in working on it than anything else.
- It seems to me, unfortunately, that you refuse to see that difference, for reasons I cannot and will not speculate about. However, I do tend to think that this sort of unilateral action on your part may be one of the reasons that the Calvinism project proved as unsuccessful as it has. I believe I said earlier that part of the reason I thought it failed was because the members of the individual churches in general tend to owe more allegiance to their church than to the theoretical basis of the church. Nothing I have seen since I first said that has led me to change my opinion. I personally think the content related to Calvinism and related entities is much more likely to get attention if the churches themselves, which the members have strong emotional ties to, are stressed over the joint theological basis of the churches, which many/most people spend remarkably less time and attention about. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for showing me what you are thinking. Any given Church/church may choose this or that word in their name for theological reasons or choose it for non-theological reasons. Sometimes the word result from local tradition or accidents of history. For example, the Scottish and U.S. bodies of the Anglican Communion are "Episcopal" where most all the other Anglican Communion bodies use the term "Anglican". While "Episcopal" can and does have theological meaning in some situations, use of "Episcopal" is here not telling us their is some important trait that these two bodies hold and other Anglican bodies do not. It is, at this point, an accident of history.
- While you might possiblly show in some other way that the "Reformed faith" differes from "Calvinism" in some important way, you cannot assume in advance that it does and sort Churches accordingly. The catagorization system purposely avoids grouping things togther when it is only based on a common name. Here is a recent example that deletes a category for this very reason.
- While I also agree members of the individual churches in general tend to feel more allegiance to their church than to the theoretical basis of the church, and doing stuff to help any Calvinism related entities is good, I do not see what your actions are doing to help that. (I am not saying they do not-- just inviting you to tell me more if you want to do so.) It seems advisable to me to group the Calvinism/Reformed bodies togther regardless of their name. I know many churches considser themselves Calvinism/Reformed but have neither word in their name. --Carlaude (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- I guess you are tring to refering to this post of yours.
- First of all that CFD was had nothing to do with my objection to the creation of Category:Reformed churches. I think a category for organizations that are "Reformed" was a fine idea but my objection was to the name was purely gramatical. As Shawn in Montreal in put it, "Any organization can be 'reformed.' The upper case on Reformed is of little help, since it could be a proper noun or just sentence case." You will also note I had no preference between "Category:Calvinist organizations" or "Category:Reformed tradition organizations"
- Second, I invited you to respond in a number of ways to that post of April 1, such as requesting a citation for your view and an explination of what your view way. Way you had given me however was only the inmormation that you did dissagree (strongly) and demands for me to undo edits. This gave me nothing to disscuss. You might also note that others at the CFD that you directed to the "issue" found-- like me-- "no such thing clearly".
- I did reply, and thanked you for the chance, once you posted something of your reasoning-- that is today.
- So "the rule may not apply in this case as it is not the only way in which the groups are united". What groups? Groups that are Reformed and/or Calvinist? -- then that is what unites them?
- Groups that are Reformed but not Calvinist? --I agree that the rule may not apply in such a case-- but how do we know there is any such difference between "Reformed" and "Calvinist"? If we do not know what the difference is, how do we know if there is any notable difference? --Carlaude (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:AncientEgyptBanner
{{AncientEgyptBanner}} does not seem to have the attention needed flag. If it does, the category is not being populated properly. If you have a moment can you investigate. Thank you for all you do. I would barnstar you, but you already have from this project. -- Secisek (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Saints portal
Can you offer any suggestions before I head over to Featured Portal with it? It seems to be quite a bit stronger than a number of existing Featured Portals, but I am anxious to avoid a repeat of the Anglican Portal disaster. Part of why I insisted on nailing down the requirements then was to make it easier going forward. Let me know what you think. -- Secisek (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Good work
Good job on all the article tagging & categorizing I've seen you doing to Christianity-related articles! TheAE talk/sign 00:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Word. --Aepoutre (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
lowercase people
Alright, I wont mess with it anymore. I just got a little upset that people categorized lowercase people as a "Christian" organization, which it primarily isn't.
Random pregunta
Hey, are you sure that categories are intended to be removed from the article if they can be placed in a category named for the article? I'd categorized them both that way before, but had always been loathe to remove the cat from the article itself. I tried checking up on the guidelines, but gave up rather early :-). If that info. is somewhere specific, I'd love to know where! Cheers! --Aepoutre (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi John
I just noticed your edit summary here, and would like to ask what is it "I claim"? NikoSilver 01:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- The claim in question was your assertion that the name ROM was taken for some sort of nefarious purpose. John Carter (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- By "taken" you mean "first chosen"? I did not assert anything of the sort. In any case, whichever reason was for "taking" the name RoM, fact remains that it presently is used for nefarious purposes. But, as I said, this should have nothing to do with our policies, and sorry for indulging in replying to the curious. NikoSilver 18:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is possible that you are correct. However, to categorically say as much, without explicit sourcing from the parties invovled, is a violation of several policies. There are several comments already on the page in question saying that we do not judge the intentions of people, we simply report on the information we have. You seemed to be trying to say that the name could be invalidated on the basis of some claim, which is probably related to a BLP and thus requires sourcing from the party or parties involved directly, that their motivations for doing so were less than laudable. No such direct sourcing has been produced, and would probably not be particularly important if it were. The country's name, according to its own documents, would remain the same one way or another. Basically, the entire matter of why they chose the name is, at least relative to the subject at hand, irrelevant. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- For the nefarious purposes see the relevant exhaustingly sourced section at our featured article: Macedonia (terminology)#Ethnic Macedonian nationalism Especially read (so-called pro-Macedonian) Danforth's quote and also read the last sentence of the section (the one with the 8 refs). And I'm not saying the name should be "invalidated" because of that. Actually if it wasn't for the rampant nationalism I wouldn't even care about the issue. My only note is that ambiguity fuels nationalism (especially for lay-people who could not understand the difference between Macedonia, Macedonia and Macedonia). It could all be avoided if each of them had a non-omitable qualifier to signify the difference from one another. Now aaaaaall this is absolutely irrelevant to WP policies, and should not affect our editorial decisions; I was just replying because I was asked, and sorry for indulging. NikoSilver 18:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi John. I wondered if you could do something to set up an assessesement thing for this? Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Great thanks. Actually there is also another major project which hasn't got anyhing yet. Thats Template:WikiProject Protected Areas which of course covers all the world snational parks and protected areas, I have no idea why these two projects being seemingly hige have not got any assessment yet Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC).
Yes I think it makes sense that way. There is even a new historical sites project which I'm vaguely attached to which will also overlap (again) with some of the other projects. I set up the WikiProject Africa Protected areas taskforce myself but so far we can only use the africa templates and include the protected areas template in general rather than giving an assessment. 13:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm a member of the group. Can you say something on the project talk page and I'll offer my views? Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Assessment of Adventist articles
Hi John Carter, thank-you for your work in assessing Adventist articles recently, particularly the "class". However for "importance", you changed many articles to "Top" importance, which was apparently accidental. I have changed them back; although have reassessed a couple. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Re:Newsletter delivery
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-- Tinu Cherian - 06:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The List
John, thanks for coming in. It isn't that the allegations are serious, but that the actions I'm trying to describe are serious. I've been dealing with this other person for months now, and I'm completely at a loss. He habitually deletes sourced material, claiming that other articles must exist, and yet when I offer to work with him to help create those articles, he refuses to do so. This just isn't sincere. If he wants the other articles, I've been willing to help him, even though I've cited Wikipedia guidelines to him that the other articles are not necessary for this article to exist. I know it looks odd to you coming in to have someone apparently calling another person names. Honestly, I can't think of a term for his uncivil actions other than the one I've used. I've even asked for another term to use and the other party refuses to supply a different term to describe the action. I think I've been more than fair, and completely collaborative in spirit. But collaboration doesn't work with someone who is demanding things that they don't want: such as other articles, or a different term for me to use. If he DEMANDS something, then he should allow me to cooperate with him to get what he wants. If he refuses, why demand it in the first place?
So, which is worse -- demanding something you refuse to help create, or pointing out that this is what is happening. Also, which is worse -- habitually deleting sourced material, or pointing out that this is what is happening.
In my view, the actions are more uncivil than the description of those actions. And my offer to help create the articles he CLAIMS to demand is entirely civil. It is the refusal to collaborate in his own demand that is not civil in the least. Again, I thank you for showing up. Please encourage this person to help create what he is demanding, or to stop demanding it. I don't care either way. Once he starts agreeing with himself, I'll know which "him" to collaborate with, and I'll be most happy to do so. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- John -- thanks for your second note. I've invited the other party to create a term that describes his actions. As long as it is an accurate term I'll be most happy to use it. I must confess that I have trouble creating a complementary term for an uncivil action, but I HAVE asked for help. I'll even ask yourself -- what term do you use for habitual deletion of sourced material, when that material has been defended by a number of editors citing Wikipedia guidelines, and those other editors have even offered to help you create any other articles you claim to demand as a precondition for the material you are deleting -- and yet you refuse. (That's a generic "you" and not meant to be yourself). That's what is happening here. If you doubt that, then you can offer to help Jayjg to create those articles and see how much he really believes in his own demand. I'm serious -- try it and see how far you'll get. If you get farther than I have, I'll be glad to help as well. The offer to collaborate stays open, no matter how severely it gets slammed in my face.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- John, thanks for your third note. As I've said on the talk page, I've cited Wikipedia guidelines several times here. The additional articles are not required in this case. I'm not the one demanding they exist, but I've been willing to help the person demanding they exist. The problem is that he demands it, but refuses the help. That's just not consistent. Either demand it, or don't -- I don't care which at this point, since I've offered to help either way. But he doesn't seem to want what he says he wants -- and I can't read minds.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry if I wasn't clear. I've quoted this several times from the notability guidelines: "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." This is such a notable event. When the other articles have been created, they've stood unchallenged even though this was the ONLY notability for the individual. There are five or six of these now, and it's wasteful. Since they all have the same notability, then list them in that single notable event, without 37 articles. However, I've offered to help the other party if he demands it. I think it's contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, but I'm always willing to collaborate. But he needs to make up his mind.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)