User talk:John Carter

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 Recent Project News Article count on at 961! We now have 961 articles but, will have many more soon as only a few are marked as in our project. At least 803 are unassessed though, plenty of work for us to do. Project member count reaches 12 members! Keep inviting all your WikiFriends. Award offered—Since 2008-01-05, Sharkface217 has offered a Barnstar to the editor who can expand the article Timeline. It certainly needs it, now that it has been disambiguated from Chronology: Go to the Timeline listing on the Awards page to find out Sharkface's minimum requirements! From the Time Portal An IP added this funny comment to Portal talk:Time "I never though I would see the day mankind succeeds in creating a time portal." Recent Time News From the leap second article: in April 2008: ITU Working Party 7A will submit to ITU Study Group 7 project recommendation on stopping leap second[s]. Calendars met on March 21. It was Good Friday (Western Christianity, 2008); Purim ends at sundown (Judaism, 2008); Naw-Rúz in the Bahá'í calendar, Benito Juárez Day in Mexico, World Poetry Day.
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 Recent Project News Article count at 1074! At least 911 are unassessed though, plenty of work for us to do. Award offered—Since 2008-01-05, Sharkface217 has offered a Barnstar to the editor who can expand the article Timeline. It certainly needs it, now that it has been disambiguated from Chronology: Go to the Timeline listing on the Awards page to find out Sharkface's minimum requirements! From the Time Portal History of timekeeping devices reaches Good Article Status —On April 7 the history of time keeping article became a GA. This is our only top importance article to reach this prestigious status. This was only possible with the dedication of the Tzatziki Squad. They are continuing to work on the article to reach Feature Article status. History of timekeeping devices in Egypt was a DYK —The article appeared on the Main Page on April 8. With this text: "...that despite Herodotus's claim that the sundial was invented in Babylon, the oldest known example is from Egypt?" This also was only possible thanks to the Tzatziki Squad. Recent Time News None that I know of.
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

Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
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 Recent Project News Article count at 1091! 979 are unassessed though, plenty of work for us to do. Project member count reaches 16 members! Keep inviting all your WikiFriends. Award offered—Since 2008-01-05, Sharkface217 has offered a Barnstar to the editor who can expand the article Timeline. It certainly needs it, now that it has been disambiguated from Chronology: Go to the Timeline listing on the Awards page to find out Sharkface's minimum requirements! From the Time Portal History of timekeeping devices reaches A-Class Status—On May 22 the history of time keeping article was promoted by User:Zginder to A-Class. This is our only article to reach this prestigious status. This was only possible with the dedication of the Tzatziki Squad. They are continuing to work on the article to reach Feature Article status. Merkhet was a DYK—The article appeared on the Main Page on April 28. With this text: "... that merkhets were Ancient Egyptian timekeeping devices that tracked the movement of certain stars over the meridian in order to ascertain the time during the night, when sundials could not function?" This also was only possible thanks to the Tzatziki Squad. Recent Time News The June Solstice takes place on 2008-06-20T23:59.
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!

List of heads of Serbian Orthodox Church

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), 00:01, Tuesday, May 7, 2024 (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.

Greece etc

Do you think we can rescue souls from Hades? LOL. This is truly frustrating. While I have some empathy for the grk position, I have no sympathy for it: not that sympathy would be a driving concern in this case, as policy is quite clear. Maybe I need a shot of Ouzo?  ;) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Josephus

Hi John. Thank you for your input on my talk page. Regards --Chris Cohen (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Christianity banner

Regarding this project banner, you might save yourself a lot of work by using the meta template {{WPBannerMeta}}. Let me know if you'd like any help with it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm building a new version in Template:ChristianityWikiProject/sandbox. It's nowhere near ready yet though. That's a monster template you've got there. It might take a little while to finish, but it should be more up-to-date and robust in the end. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Christianity Explained - Prod

Hi, I declined your proposed deletion of the above article because it had been prodded and contested in 2006. I've nommed the article for AfD instead, here. Best, – Toon^(talk) 22:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Old requests for Oriental Orthodoxy peer review

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Old requests for Oriental Orthodoxy peer review]] to pages that belong in it.

I tagged the category. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of tagging and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to remove the tag if you wish. However, removing the tag will not prevent deletion of the category if it remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes...

I guess it's bound to happen on a site like this: sometimes you are going to learn about something you wish you didn't need to know existed. Ugh - we humans can be wonderful, but we can also be horrible. LadyofShalott ^Weave 02:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Co-sponsorship

Sure thing, and I've responded to the ANI thread (sorry for the delay, I was at lunch). I'd be happy to do that. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Belarus assessments

Hi John could you set up assessments for Belarus? See Template:WikiProject Belarus Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah I tagged a category as category class and nothing showed. I wish we could get some sort of individual assessment of the Central Asian countries too but we know the reaosn why, Latebird. I lost my temper with him a few months back and said he is the most stubborn person I've ever encountered in my life. He drove the editor, a pro cartographer, you know the guy who made all our maps o provinces and counties all over the world away from wikipedia because of his treatment of the Mongolian maps and saying how useless and false they were. Nice guy. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Madonna (art)

Hi John, you rated this as start... I am not sure why. It seems better than that... And I did not write it, but it looks good...

Cheers History2007 (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no worries, I will add more refs later. Cheers History2007 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Move of the article Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia by User:ChrisO and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,--Yannismarou (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Eithe

As the ancient Greeks used to say..."eithe!" (I wish!) I am really amazed at the pretension, at how this story has been twisted! Did you notice how the discussion topic I renamed to "Why do you guys object to the new name of the article (Macedonia)?" was conveniently introduced as "Why do you guys object to the current name of the article (Macedonia)?" I really was not a strong advocate of the Greek positions in the past, where history was not the question. Now I truly understand their fears and objections... GK1973 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

+1

Re [1]: for hitting the nail squarely on the head, +1. Knepflerle (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

re our fave

thanks [2]. I owe you a good deed in return. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Big losers that need help...

You might not remember me, but you were the editor who assessed the Old Time Missionary Baptist page for me. Well, I need help with it. I can't seem to figure out how to reference two different sources. Every time I try, it gives me a cite error message (apparently I can't put it on your page, else everything written after that stops, so I linked it) I understand what it means, but I can't figure out how to fix it. Can you help me? And if not, can you direct me to a person/place where I can get it? Joshua Ingram (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Luckily, I had it mostly right. The thing I got wrong was, when I referenced my first and second references, I forgot to put quotation marks in it. (ref name=something without quotations>blah blah blah<ref/) I got it after a few minutes. Do they let you know when they do an assessment? I requested one almost a month ago, but nothing ever changed. I now realize I didn't make the correct references, but nothing was ever said. Is there some way, other than going through a month full of logs, to find out if they did one? Joshua Ingram (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I Wikified the living crap out of it. Do I talk to you, or do I request another assessment? Joshua Ingram (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I wanted to thank you for taking the time to help me. After accidentally clicking on your contribs link, I realized just how incredibly nice you are for helping me with my relatively small problems. Thank you. Joshua Ingram (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on the page, but it's mostly do to your guidance. And you more than deserve the award. Joshua Ingram 16:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you still adopting? Joshua Ingram 19:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not like you haven't already unofficially adopted me. I would really like it if you would, though. Joshua Ingram 19:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I was just tired of them attacking me, and I slid a little. I took tit for tat a little too far. Joshua Ingram 00:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant to ask you, (assuming you have seen the most current update to the OTMB page, as of now) do you think that the article has been Wikified enough to take the thingamajig at the top down? Joshua Ingram 12:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you spend much time on the Jesus Christ article? And if you do, can you tell me why Mary Magdalene and their "relationship" isn't mentioned? Joshua Ingram 02:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Lord, what did you do to the idiot that keeps cursing you out on your userpage? Joshua Ingram 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia survey

The ArbCom has voted to freeze all Macedonia-related renaming until after the case is concluded and then to permit it only as prescribed in the final decision (see WP:RFAR#Motion). This obviously makes the ongoing survey on Talk:Macedonia moot, as any conclusions can't be implemented, since ArbCom's decision will override anything that the survey decides (not that there seems to be a consensus anyway). Could I ask you to close the survey in the meantime? I'm sure you and others will be taking the opportunity to put forward arguments when the case opens on April 22nd. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Not too sure, actually – personally, I find ongoing collection of further opinions might still be useful there, so why not leave it open? Especially since it's actually been garnering some non-trivial input from people other than the "usual suspects", so it's actually enriching the picture somewhat. Of course I'm just as sick as the next guy of the predictable votes from the Greek camp, but I'm quite happy to listen to new outside opinion regarding the relative weight of, say, the "Ancient Macedonia" reading compared with the modern country reading. Just my 5c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair point. It's up to John really, it's his survey. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see no advantages to closing the survey, as the input might be useful to the ArbCom. Therefore, I think it makes sense for the survey to stay open. Also, frankly, given the recent behavior on the article, I am forced to question the motivation of the person making the request. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for advice on de-orphaning the article on Kitamori

Many thanks for your suggestion that List of Kyoto University people would be a good additional link to the article on Kazoh Kitamori. I have now done this, so there will be at least five links from the page. Providing that lists, unlike categories, count as links which can de-orphan articles, I think that the article can now lose its orphan tag (it should cerainly do so if it receives more than five incoming links from other articles in Wikipedia). Many thanks again for the advice, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Romanesque architecture

Hello you self-proclaimed "arrogant-bastard-with-a-morbid-sense-of-humour"! I notice that you just gave the Romanesque article a B-Class rating. Is that because of your sense of humour, or is it the other matter?

I'm on the architecture project, and I say that it isn't a B-Class anything! Only I'm not as sufficiently arrogant a bastard as to put an A on an article which I wrote 95% of. But you could. .... and whatismore, you ought to, since it is at your discretion to do it, and both of us have reviewed it. You could confer with Johnbob who is very cluey about this period...

I am very hesitant about putting up articles for GAs and VGAs. The process is revolting.

Cheers!

Amandajm (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi John! are you grading for Christianity specifically? I thought it was for Architecture. Never mind! Amandajm (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm feeling rather depressed. I don't usually have anything to do with the Castle article, but I decided to check it, because it wsn't linked to Gothic. Anyway, a vandal had been at it, some 8 days ago and had made a lot of changes, many of which passed as bonafide edits. The watchers of the page discussed the matter, reverted two obvious errors and simply left all the rest, including the change from Romans to Goths in the introduction, and the deletion of a list of important architects. The particualr vandal is really insidious. One of the things that he does is introduce wads of highly specific info that might be accurate but disrupt the flow of the text. (While this is a frequent problem with good-faith edits, this person is sufficiently subtle to do it deliberately). While I can understand how a silly kid might delete a page or write a rude word, or "Josh was here!", I find it quite distressing that a person can take such pleasure in subtly undermining what others are seeking to create, and are prepared to put considerable time, effort and intellect into doing it.

Amandajm (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Christian theology work group

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Christian theology work group]] to pages that belong in it.

I tagged the category. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of tagging and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to remove the tag if you wish. However, removing the tag will not prevent deletion of the category if it remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship

Dear Mr. Carter: I was not aware that I still needed a mentor, although I thank you for your kind offer. All of my edits since returning have been in good-faith to help improve Wikipedia, and I am proud of them. I have received praise from other editors on my talk page, even being called an "Awesome Wikipedian".

I am very grateful to Wikipedia for giving me a second chance. If you have an issue with any particular edits I make please give me the benefit of your opinion. I will always listen to a positive voice. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I updated my userpage, which I had not touched since writing it in February. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fuel TV/TomCat4680

TomCat4680 already has been blocked once for 24 hours, but it was lifted after he apologized and said he would stay away from the Fuel Tv page. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 16:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I appreciate your effort and help to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia! Caspian blue 19:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It was me guv!

I see you were accused of saying that the ethnic list on the Macedonia arbitration page should be deleted, when it was me all along! I wasn't hiding (honest) when it was going on. If I was logged on I would have owned up, seeing as I'm that kind of guy. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious about your user name. I was thinking it could be from a character called John Carter in some old science fiction books about a guy living on Mars. Of course, I could be way off the mark, just curious though. Jack forbes (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope they make a good job of it. I haven't read those books for years but I do know that they don't often get it right when translating books to the movies. Fingers crossed though. Jack forbes (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Ps, the one I remember them getting right was Dune. It wasn't a financial success but I thought they got it spot on. Jack forbes (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack, I don't think I saw you state this on the workshop of the arbitration. ChrisO recently said "all that oppose are Greeks" more or less. Please restate that there if you want to. John, I guess the involvement in certain wikipedia articles to support obvious ethics can label someone as Greek. See here[3]. Maybe change the nick to John Carter the Greek? :) Thank God none said you are actually from Mars. Regards Shadowmorph (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding... me actually!

I want to thank you again for taking the time to add me to list. I've noticed that some may not be aware of the correct sequence of events leading to several blog/forum posts bearing my nickname. I'll keep it short. A few days ago, after I came back from holidays, I saw a message in my mailbox about the current issue regarding Macedonia's Wikipedia entry. Although I contributed to many Wikipedia entries before, this was the perfect time to register an account in order to keep track of the case. I also posted in grk.forthnet.users a message, in case anyone else was interested in voicing his opinions. This newsgroup is also indexed by Google; someone took it from there and posted in several blogs/fora. Others also took it and repeated the same procedure, sometimes leaving the message intact, sometimes not. Some Wikipedians found this message in a certain blog and their poor command of the greek language led them to believe that a) this is my blog and b) I'm calling for waves of nationalists to flood Wikipedia. How odd is that! I do not claim to represent anyone, but since the english version of Wikipedia isn't very popular within the greek-speaking community, I believe that my voice would be a useful addition to the ongoing dialogue. This is the translation of the original newsgroup message. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

WPAGS importance rating

Alright, I got a third and a fourth opinion on this from other editors just to be sure about the rough consensus. Seems we do not want any importance rating in this case. –Holt (T•C) 23:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

request for formal consensus

In regard of ISKCON article I would need some of your help. Can you please formally organize a consensus vote on what sources should be allowed on the article of ISKCON and if schismatic groups should be represented in a separate section of the article. I appreciate your help. Wikidas 07:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Imhotep

I wonder if you might want to comment at Talk:Imhotep. Some issues have come up there that touch on your area of expertise. LadyofShalott 17:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing Barnstar

		100,000 Edits
		I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________

Agriculture in Saudi Arabia

Hi can you kindly explain to the speedy tagger Library of Congress Country Studies material is public domain. It is explained on both his talk page and article page but he just aint getting it.Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Better now?

I really don't want to bother you, but is it better now? Is this suitable for the Workshop? Also in the process of gathering diffs, although others already used some and I'm not sure if repeating them is allowed or encouraged. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at LDS-SPA1000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at LDS-SPA1000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at LDS-SPA1000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at LDS-SPA1000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks John

Thanks, but I will never seek adminship. I'm too flawed to do it :) man with one red shoe 18:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, sir, I said the same thing several times, and didn't see myself as being at all a very strong candidate. The voting on my RfA, which ended 146 for, 0 against, 1 abstain, kind of told me I might be wrong. Actually, I'm still more than a bit stunned by that. But based on what I've seen you do have the level-headedness and neutrality which I find in the best candidates. Anyway, I can understand your not wanting the post. Like I said, I said the same thing myself several times. You might find the idea mentioned again by various others in the future, though. I hope so anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I read a bit your RfA, I would not qualify for sure, I have no contributions that I can speak of and I don't know even half of the rules/procedures that you know about Wikipedia, and of course I would still be not interested in getting an admin position. But thanks anyway for thinking of me, besides I'm just one inch away from being accused of ethnic profiling... let's see how this case goes. I wish the arbitrators actually read between the lines and see what a specific block of editors did under the shield of "Assume Good Faith", basically trying to impose their POV talking advantage of Wikipedia's policies -- at least that's my view. I don't see a clear solution though, you can't ban people that didn't infringe clear policies, you can't "ethnic profile", I wish there was a way to test the POV and have other people than Greeks or Macedonians express their ideas about the name that Wikipedia should use and debate based on policies not on feelings or political orientation. man with one red shoe 19:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is one way to do that. It's the one that I proposed based on how the ArbCom decided in January to handle Irish names. They took three uninvolved admins and had them make the decision. I'm thinking something like that will probably happen here as well. I imagine the rest of us will be allowed to contribute to the discussion, but the final decision will probably be in their hands. In the Irish case, their decision is listed as being non-negotiable for two years therefater. I have an unfortunate feeling that might be the only workable solution in a lot of these cases. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me, having uninvolved admins judge the case is way better than having 20 involved party "vote", war edit and filibuster endlessly in the talk page. man with one red shoe 19:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was profiled as a nationalist after I voted on the straw poll at the Greek talk page. I happen to be a Scottish Nationalist which has nothing whatsoever to do with Greek Nationalism or anything Greek for that matter. I have actually taken the talk pages of the disputes off my watch list as I believe it is all getting far too heated and frankly my opinions on the matter are not strong enough to continue my involvement with it. Jack forbes (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And as an American of German and Norwegian ancestry I was branded a Macedonian-nationalist as well as someobne devoid of any knowledge of the issue. ROFL.

Red Shoe -- why not give it a shot? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm honored that two people thought of this, I really am, but no chance. Thanks. man with one red shoe 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at LDS-SPA1000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Well, it goes up every digit, so the next one is 1,000,000, so far the highest is about 311722. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your proposals on Macedonia

They were right on the money. Just one important addition that you should include. Before all other procedures, the name of the main article should be reverted back to where it was. That would be the only neural starting point. Shadowmorph (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

FoF

Hi John, even though I think I know what an FoF is, what does FoF stand for? Dr.K. logos 16:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're BACK!!!!

I'm so so happy. Was just going through the history of Preity Zinta and noticed an edit of someone very familiar. I couldn't believe, and I'm so happy you're back with us. So first, welcome back. And secondly, how do you feel? Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess you saw the reversion I did on the 21st on the article. There doesn't seem to have been any real long-term damage as a result of the mugging, so generally OK. There's still a lot of work to do with the various Christian articles, particularly tagging, and that is taking up a lot of time. And ArbCom is always a thrill. So I guess things could be better, but it would probably be a lot less interesting if they were. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you look

at this: Quicumque vult? Thanks. Athanasius1 (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

templates (the adding and removing of them)

User:Jakezing has undone some of my edits that added the WP christianity template and removed the WP LDS movement template. His reason is that he does not believe that the mormon religion is christian, and that the WP LDS movement template would be better suited for the articles. I have referred him to you. I will accept any decision you make. Thanks. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic States assistance

Thanks for your help, and outside view. I'm not certain I count as an outside view in the article any longer, despite my efforts to drive things in an NPOV direction. I particularly appreciate the suggestions for how to break the article down. I'll take things down the mediation route now, as it is clear none of the interested parties intend to let me make any changes to the article. Once again, fine effort on your part, and greatly appreciated by me. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

With the agreement arrived at from opposite poles that further ArbCom pursuit would not be fruitful, and with the "keep" closure for content split off, I thank you for your thoughtful and considered dialog. I'll be "unwatching" your talk page, as always, please feel free to contact me on mine. Best regards, PetersV       TALK 01:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh

Never assume shit about me man, it only pisses me off. Second i didnt read all of that because of rule one of my talk page, and secondly, i also used the fact removing the LDS project tags would take them AWAY from the LDS projects ability despite the fact the LDS is awhat those articles are about. Therefor removing them from a specefic wikiproject and putting them on a mother wiki rpoject for the topic in general is a mistake.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User:LDS-SPA1000

Would you be able to keep an eye on this user; as per this thread, he seems to have misunderstood the instructions you gave him and is replacing all instances of {{LDSproject}} with {{WikiProject Christianity}} without either the latter-day-saint-movement=yes qualifier or a separate banner – consequently this is going to dump all the LDS articles into the "generic" pot, which will be of little use to anyone. I'll go through his contributions to date and fix them, but won't be round to keep an eye on him if he continues – and I don't want to block if I can avoid it. – iridescent 22:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this section is about me, I guess this is the best place to comment. Concerning the comment you made at WP Panama, what do I do with all of the temples in the U.S.? I am also adding the LDS Work group (part of WP LDS movement) to all temples. However, when I added an importance to the LDS Work group section, it would not show. Could you please look at the Salt Lake temple for an example? Thanks (and sorry for any trouble I have caused you) LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Do I also add a template for the city that the temple is located in (i.e. Seattle Washington temple, WP seattle). LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Concern troll

No it doesn't. A personal attack predisposes a person being attacked. My general comment does not refer to any person in particular; it belongs to a summary of the long-term situation.

It can be viewed in another way. Wikipedia has an article on trolls. Does the existence of this article violate the policy of WP:NPA? Most certainly not -- and this holds even though it is, theoretically speaking, possible that some people might uncomfortably recognise themselves when reading this article. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 23:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		This edit is brilliant! It's unexpected, it's witty, it's recursive -- everything one might seek in a good metajoke. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 23:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

I've responded to yours on mine. PetersV       TALK 00:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states was bound to go off the rails, considering Hiberniantears' attitude expressed before coming to that page, where he claims "problem is going to be centered on a group of editors who are either nationalist, or just anti-Soviet or anti-Russian, and that these editors are creating the illusion of consensus by way of stonewalling against any other points of view". The problem with this, putting the fallacious stereotyping to one side, is that he refuses to provide any reliable sources to back these other view points that he speaks of. Wikipedia isn't an venue for publishing original research, and as I pointed out to Hiberniantears here, there is a lack off any source material on which to base discussion on the "multiple viewpoints" that Hiberniantears wishes to discuss. Sure, there is the political view of the Russian government (they have yet to release any kind of analysis to support this view), but how much weight do we attach to it? It is already covered in the article. Iran denies the scope of the Holocaust, should we now give equal weight to their viewpoint and claim the Holocaust is the unbalanced work of "a group of editors who are either zionist, or just anti-Palestinian or anti-Iranian"? Martintg (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph and Imhotep

Sorry about that.

I was disturbed about the comments of other editors that the bible is not a reliable source to clarify historical issues even on Biblical Characters.

Some of the Books of the Bible represent the historical records of Israel for that period (eg first and Second Kings, Chronicals). In fact most books of the Bible contain historical information that can often be varified in non biblical literature. There are not many other books of that vintage that have been preserved so well. The bible is primarily a record of God's dealings with man, in particular, Israel in the Old Testament and the Gospels and the Gentiles in Acts and the Epistles. It contains reliable historical information and discusses places, people and events that are mentioned in non biblical manuscripts and heiroglypics.

Obviously, it is necessary to quote the Bible when discussing biblical characters, sites and events. (should it be a note or a reference?)

I understand that a reliable source is required to support any correlation of Biblical Characters with other Historical material.

When editing, can I make changes to the comments of others in articles. Otherwise, how can an article be improved or tidied up?

I suppose it is not fair to do this in a discussion page. But people did it to me first!

Articles are not meant to be discussions and it is not considered good form to put your name in article anyway.

When is a change considered vandalism and when is it not.

For example, my edits of the article on premillennialism were removed and called vandalism.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My article on Joseph and Imhotep was not original research. It has been suggested by many others, most notably Ronn Wyatt who has conducted considerable research on this topic. Wikipedia does not regard him as a reliable source even though his works are being increasingly recognised (Mt Sinai, red sea crossing at Nuweiba, Gulf Aqaba). Now some Israeli Rabbis claimed to have recovered the ark from tunnels under the temple mount and the Israeli government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen his excavation of calvary. The red material that was analysed and found to be living cellular material with 24 chomosomes turned out to be Chiton of snail origin - so he did not fabricate his findings - he just concluded wrongly as to what it was. This therefore does not invalidated any of his other work.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I resubmit the article on Joseph and Imhotep once I have sorted out my references?

--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently does not offer any candidate for the Personage of Joseph in Egyptian history and does not offer any explanation for why he did not make it into Egyptian history. It is therefore unfair to call this article a fringe theory. fringe theories. What is more, this article is not original research original research. I am able to quote original sources of quite some depth. In particular, Ronn Wyatt who conducted a lot of research in Egypt on this very issue. Wikipedia has disallowed them because Wikipedia dose not consider Ron Wyatt to be a reliablereliable source. His discoveries are, however, being increasingly recognised, in particular the site of the red sea crossing and the true Mount Sinai in Arabia. His also claimed to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant in 1982. He was accused of fraud because he could not prove it. His reputation suffered as a result. Now the Israelies claim to have it in there possession and the Israel government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen Ronn Wyatts explanations of the Calvary escarpment. The brown/red material that Ron Wyatt had analysed and was said to be living cellular material with 23 chromosomes turned out to be chiton - most likely of snail origin. He was not fraudulent, he was just wrong about it being blood. Given the nature of archaeology and science, we all make these type of errors. We propose a hypothesis, we test it and if it is reproducible then we keep the hypothesis until it is disproven and replaced with a better one.--Drnhawkins (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Merci

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks very much for removing that vandalism from my userpage. I've been having a lot of trouble with that IP range recently. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Motion request

As I'm not yet a party, I have a request. Since Future Perfect at Sunrise admitted that he communicated off-wiki with ChrisO, their correspondence could provide instrumental evidence for the case. Here I asked him if he would agree - provided that ChrisO agrees also - to post these messages for parties to examine. I understand concerns about privacy, though this is about a Wikipedia entry and not a personal matter. If we don't review the contents of these mails, someone might accuse them of something that they didn't do; even for collaborating with others too. If we do, we could still not be sure if they are forged, but in the spitit of good faith they are acceptable. I believe that this could be a valid request, if everyone involved agrees. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maltzew

Hi John, would Probst Maltzew (see Abda and Sabas), Probst Mayhew (see Menologium der Orthodox-Katholischen Kirche des Morgenlandes) and Provost Alexios Maltzew (see Euchologion#Publication) be the same person? If so would it be helpful to use a consistent spelling, or perhaps create redirects to the latter article? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Autograph

Thanks, normally when people sign my Auatograph book, I sign theirs, but leaving you message will do. Thanks, it is nice to be appreciated every once and a while, and if you ever need anything (Mostly about Insects and Jehovah's Witnesses) you know were to find me... well here! Bugboy52.4 (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

John, Bugboy has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Damërung gave me this, and it says to pass it on to a good friend, so pass it on! Bugboy52.4 (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at LDS-SPA1000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Reading list on the Baltic states

Hi John, I note you are reading up on the Baltic states, that's commendable. I've added a list here: User_talk:Hiberniantears#Real_world_required_reading_on_the_Baltics. I also have an reasonable collection of books at home, and access to my university library, so if you need assistance tracking material down, give me a yell. Martintg (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in this book published just last year which reviews the Baltic question during the Cold War, called, um, "The Baltic question during the Cold War". I've not read the book beyond skimming the preview, but it seems it could be the definitive study of the various viewpoints (including the Russian viewpoint) regarding the Soviet occupation of the Baltics. Martintg (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiden's work on the Baltics is very highly regarded, I'm not familiar with this work, but having read others, I can vouch for their quality and scholarship. His publisher had asked me to review one of his books, here. PetersV       TALK 18:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states

Mentioned you at this ANI thread I opened on myself. Feel free to stay out of it, if you want to, but wanted you to know I had brought up your name. Hiberniantears (talk)

Thanks for thoughtful response

I am not sure about the move, the page might end up at Macedonia (country) or back to the old name, but I think ChrisO explained his reasons and nobody seemed to attack the reasons, most of the people attacked the technicality of the move and, sorry for the word, they bullshit around about the "consensus". As I said before his move is "BOLD" only if you take in consideration the strong POV against the name... But I don't care deeply about the name that it will end up being used for that page, I do care about FYROM name pushing on Greece page which I think is unacceptable because of the NPOV principles. And yes I agree with Fut. Perf. that this move was uninspired especially at the moment. man with one red shoe 17:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Christian films work group

Sure! I'd be happy to grow something together. What should I write about? And how long? Thanks. TheAE talk/sign 18:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll write something up. TheAE talk/sign 18:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I came up with:

“ Hello fellow WikiProject Film members! I was recently apart of founding a task force, so this is the story. For several months, I would not only contribute to Christian films, groups, etc., but I'd also see other users working on similar articles. I really wanted to create a project for us to work from. Filmcom contacted me about trying to get a task force going, so we began working together on it. When it appeared the idea was dying, we continued to fight, and several other users joined!

Thanks to the efforts of many users, I'd like to introduce you to the Christian films task force! We are currently having a bot tag all Christian film-related articles, and we are working to define our project scope. We now have our own icon and shortcut (WP:CFTF), with ten users signed out thus far - these are just some of the things that have been happening in the last few days. If you have any interest in joining such a project, we welcome everyone to join and get involved. TheAE talk/sign

”

If it's completed opposite of what you were wanting, feel free to discard it or I am willing to redo it. You may also change it, or whatever else goes into writing a newsletter. Tell me what you're thinking. Thanks. :) TheAE talk/sign 19:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, good catch. I haven't written "WikiProject Christianity" for awhile, so I didn't have that mindset in writing it. :) Thanks! I've removed the last part of my signature ("sign", etc.), as it wasn't needed. Everything looks good to me! TheAE talk/sign 19:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

R Request on arb page

John, This looks like the use of wiki for publicity, since NAMIRI is an 'anonymous' Moroccan company dealing in direct or indirect participation in (financial) operations or enterprises by means of the creation of companies, participation in their set up by in raising capital for existing companies, taking orders to effect such things, like buying stocks, voting rights etc. . .It publicizes itself as virtually ready to engages in any type of economic activity, management, agricultural, commercial, maritime or mining business. It's just an advertisement gives its social capital (a pittance) and its account number in a Moroccan bank. etc. If you want I could translate the lot, but you'd better check with Fayssaf(sp.) who's Moroccan, just to confirm. Best Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Project Namespace

Yes. I just want to know how to create a page for the project.Tobit2 (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

John. I answered my own question. Thanks for taking an interest.Tobit2 (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		It's for being a cat. Really Username (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please give me a barnstar! Here you will find a well-written essay which will convince you. Do you know how many barnstars I've given out already! If there was a "Barnstar of Barnstar Giving Barnstars" I would have like a million of them. Sorry for using this as an opportunity to beg. --Username (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you so much! :):):):)--Username (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

User page spam

Your user page has come under quite a lot of vandalism lately. I have done my best to revert and report the users involved in it, however, I think semi-protection or full protection of your userpage may be a smart idea. I just wanted to let you know, have a great day. talk ProSpider 23:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is semiprotected now, actually. It's one repeated vandal based on User talk:129.2.175.70 who seems to have serious problems. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to consider filing a checkuser request as well to possibly reveal who the real sockpuppeteer is. There was a CU case once where someone reported a bunch of IP's and were able to reveal the real person responsible. See This sockpuppet case as an example. Momo san ^Gespräch 00:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Abuse report

Hi, I didn't take any action on the most recent report that you made since they have only been blocked twice, and perhaps the longer block will cause them to reform. If they still keep it up after the block, drop me a note, though I have yet to find Verizon receptive to reports of abuse unfortunately.--Terrillja _talk 00:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/129.2.175.70

I created a sockpuppet/checkuser case for you. Your input is needed for the case. Thanks. Momo san ^Gespräch 00:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

New sock User:NedScottPN3142339291

Just added him to the suspected socks list. Looking at the log, this one was a sleeper account. Momo san ^Gespräch 01:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Ghana

WikiProject Ghana is listed as inactive and you are one of its members. Just wanted to let you know. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ManeuversGold

Hi John. Is there any way I can get you to add the rest of the suspected socks that were listed on the ips talk? Synergy 09:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

question at User:Warlordjohncarter

Someone left you a message 3 months ago at the above page. Thought you might want to know. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw it, thanks. I believe the project was about the Serbian Orthodox Church, and it didn't seem to have enough interested parties to justify it's creation at the time. But thanks for having noticed it. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at LDS-SPA1000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at LDS-SPA1000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

After the wailing and gnashing of teeth is done

I see that where paths have crossed we hold the similar editors in high esteem. I do hope that after Occupation of the Baltic States settles down our paths will next cross more constructively. PetersV       TALK 18:00, 3 May 2009 (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/Occupation of the Baltic states. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:15, 3 May 2009 (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.

Talkback

Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at LDS-SPA1000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at LDS-SPA1000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WP Polynesia/American Samoa

A vote 16 months ago concerning the merge of WP American Samoa into WP Polynesia was supported by you. Only 2 people voted, both in support. The merge has not yet happened. Just wanted to let you know (because you don't have the time to keep track of everything). LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was merged; it had earlier been Wikipedia:WikiProject American Samoa, it "merged" in as a subproject. But thanks for the reminder. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the merge tag was still in place so I assumed that the merge had not happened yet. I have now removed the merge tag. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Mail

You have mail! Hiberniantears (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hey thanks! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if The Misadventure of a French Gentleman Without Pants at the Zandvoort Beach qualifies for that quirky list you once told me about? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The greatest composition ever made? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. She never blinks either LOL. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Welles

Sorry for trespassing, but you noted that your are from the US, therefore perhaps you would like to comment on this. M.K. (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to correct those mistakes. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Note to self

When you're finished with the portals, work on the Welles declaration. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for yours on mine, glad to continue dialog. Historically my talk page has been a spot for working on reconciling editorial differences, all editors welcome. PetersV       TALK 18:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope that from my latest post regarding the title you can appreciate that my position is not so much that I'm a recalcitrant nationalist insisting that it's an occupation dammit, but that where portrayal of historical events is concerned, I'm caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place as removing "occupation" from the title opens far more implications and possibilities for inappropriate interpretation than leaving "occupation" in and dealing with the consequences of being perceived as/accused of being a POV-ish title. This has all been going on for years, feel free to respond at your leisure, I'm in no rush. PetersV       TALK 19:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, seeing who has commented in on the "keep" of the split-off article (I hadn't paid much attention), editors long away from the fray who have pushed the pro-Soviet view in the past have weighed in. I regret being the one to say it, but if "occupation" is removed from this title it will create an onslaught against every article which indicates that after the moment of invasion ("liberation") the Soviets ruthlessly occupied Eastern Europe. (And let's not forget that while Hitler invaded Poland to start WWII, with the Soviets radioing the Luftwaffe to assist, Stalin somehow managed to wind up with 51% of Poland while not being at war.) PetersV       TALK 14:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of article names

John, I have read your discussion with Vecrumba. I think we are getting to the nub of the matter, the neutrality of article name. The real bone of contention is the duration of the Soviet occupation, not the term "occupation" itself. Nobody disputes the Soviet Union occupied the Baltic states in 1940, but there are differing views in the duration. There is a body of post-Cold War academic work and numerous Western government declarations that supports the view occupation lasted 50 years, while the Russian government declarations supports the view that occupation ended at the conclusion of WW2, both of these view points are covered in the article itself according to weight.

The original name Occupation of the Baltic states makes no claim either way, whereas the current name Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II implies a particular POV that occupation was restricted to WW2, which is clearly more controversial given the yards of prose written about this on the various talkpages. Certainly the title "Occupation of the Baltic states" is the neutral middle ground between "Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II" and "Occupation of the Baltic states (1940-1991)". Martintg (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Project newsletter

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

-- Tinu Cherian - 21:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Walter A. Maier Biography rating

John,

Several weeks ago I completed a biography article for Walter Maier, an article which had been rated 'stub' by Wiki Biography, Wiki Christianity, and Wiki Lutheranism. At that time, I requested a reassessment from each of these different Wiki groups, in order to gain an impartial review of what else needed to be done. After all, the article was clearly no longer a stub. You were kind enough to review the article for me, and suggested that I expand the Introductory Section, (I was unaware of the preferred format for this Section,) and that I add additional sources, (I was quite aware that I had depended too much upon a single biographical source, although that source is very well documented.) You rated the article 'B' for Biography and Christianity, but gave no rating for Lutheranism.

I am currently in the process of acquiring and digesting additional information, with the intention of improving the article per your suggestions. (I am finishing Dr. Maier's Book of Nahum, I have acquired the biography of Dr. Maier's mother, etc.) But in the interim, some confusion has apparently arisen; partially due to my unfamiliarity with Wiki protocol, I am certain. Another user came in from Wiki Biography and re-rated the article 'C' in both Biography and Christianity. He offers no suggestions for improvement, and annotates that he is reassessing per my request (a request which had already been satisfied by you.) The new reviewer is 23 years old, has no apparent affiliation with Wiki Christianity, and offers no constructive criticism.

Based upon this sequence of events, my questions to you are: 1. Can a Wiki Biography 'user' overturn a Wiki Christianity 'admin' rating? 2. Would you be comfortable 'reverting' his changes? Or am I opening a 'can of worms' that I would later regret?

I spent over two months researching and writing this 39,000 byte article, and it is complete and accurate, excepting the constructive criticism which you have correctly provided. Please do not make a 'Federal' case out of this, but if you are comfortable reverting, I think your assessment was both fair and accurate.

In either case, thank you for taking the time and effort to perform a helpful evaluation.

Mortalresurrection (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try to contribute in a fashion adds to the Wikipedia. Mortalresurrection (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

More weirdness

You know that wikipedia is developing into something extraordinary when you can write a full and well referenced article about Oliver Cromwell's head. LOL. I've added it to the unusual list. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cromwell's head. oh you may want to check out AFD for May 8. People have voted unaminously to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium–Ukraine relations ‎,. I've actually nomated the article for a DYK too.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You Are So Great

Greetings, oh Great and Brilliant One, I have been sent by Spongefrog to praise and worship you for giving him the Barnstar he so deserved. I have also come to grovel and plead for my own Barnstar (though I probably don’t deserve it) – failing that I wouldn’t mind a little bit of friendly chat about why I don’t deserve a Barnstar. Let me know (also bear in mind I will soon be starting a List of Shame for people who don’t give me Barnstars, and a List of Not-Shame for those who do.)

Thanks,

--ScribbleStick (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The lists were my idea, you know. But I don't mind. It'll make his day if he gets another barnstar. Or at least a message telling him why s/he can't get one.

P.S. Just one more thing... If you don't give him one we'll be forced to move your name from the Non-Shame List to the soon to be created, half-shame list. --Spongefrog (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Please perhaps read WP:ISNOT, which indicates that this is primarily about building the encyclopedia, not some form of social networking site. And, for what it's worth, if not bowing to demands for awards is "shameful", I welcome being called that. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirects to Michael (archangel)

I saw your name on this editor's page, any idea what is going on here? [4]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And this redirect Mary Free. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry

I am sorry I swear I will never, ever do it ever again. Sorry. Sorry. Please forgive me. I am ashamed of myself. I have learned my lesson. I will become a more constuctive editor and at least 70% of my edits will be articles. Sorry. Thankyou for making me realise my grevious errors (although I will have to move your name).--Spongefrog (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

once again i am sorry. --Spongefrog (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

i am so sorry i am going to look for a bad article and make it fa class. i am so desperate to say sorry i dont care about capitals or puntuation (by the way, I added your name to the john carter disambig but I'm not sure this is appropriate. remove it if it is necessary).

[[File:Olive branch.svg|thumb|left|As an apology, I offer you this award, an Olive Branch of Peace. --Spongefrog (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it didn't work, but you know what it is.

Please forgive me! I can't leave wikipedia until i know i've been forgiven. I would give you the guidance barnstar but i'm not sure if i should (im not trying to be smart here)  :(

I am so sorry I'm considering apologising to Jimbo himself for misuse of his encyclopedia. --Spongefrog (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Smile :)

John Carter, Spongefrog has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

heres a smile i got from gaia octavia agrippa. I think you are supposed to give them to someone else when you get them so I gave it to you. Spongefrog (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

LOOK HERE! (please)

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

--ScribbleStick (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Created Articles

Hey, me again, I was just looking at the list article you've created and was wondering if there is an easy way to create a list like thi, or do you have to do it all manually.

Thanks,

--ScribbleStick (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A Question

Your the only admin I know so I have to ask you. You know how you can change your preferences to know your gender? How does anybody know that you have it set? I know I've not worded it very well, but you get my meaning. By the way, I didn't exactly tell scribblestick to ask for a barnstar, I just indirectly told him to give you lots of praise and fan mail from this page. But I know what you mean. I set a bad example to a new user. --Spongefrog (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot. Thankyou for your merciful forgivveness [sic].

Thanks

Hello. I notice you removed that fake block template from my talk page. Its a little late but thanks. Whats his deal anyway? Hahaha!--Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 20:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse

The evidence page said that you would be advocating for Mattisse. If that is so, I thank you for doing that. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I would like to craft some proposed final decisions with you on this case. We can discuss it here, through email, or whatever other means you suggest. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you for agreeing to help Mattisse. I hope your assistance will help her to feel more comfortable and be able to participate more fully. It is important that her concerns are also investigated, so that other editors can either know what to improve on, or be vindicated. Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to call this

I know I didn't word it well, but what I was asking is how other users can tell what gender you have set. Not that it matters that much, I was just wondering. --Spongefrog (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations

Hello. I was wondering what you think we should do about the continuing problem of people listing the bilateral articles for AFD. Bulgaria–Uzbekistan relations for sintance the same nominator every time claims "no sources exist" yet check the article out now and it has over 30 sources. I just think it is coming to the point that it is getting disruptive having to save them everytime. Can't we come to a formal consensus on whether they ar enotable or not and decide whether all these afds are appropriate?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Proposed merger of WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy and WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy

Hi John Carter. Thanks for letting me know. I have replied in the section that you specified. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Two questions

Hey John, two quick ones - 1) I left a message on my userpage for you somewhere on this page. You didn't answer, were you unable to find it? 2) I left a question on you user page somewhere on this page. You didn't answer, are you still annoyed with me becuase I'm the reason you were removed from the Non-Shame list?

(If you don't answer I'll assume the answer is yes to both)

--ScribbleStick (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Snap

You need to review your latest claims about me [5], which contain several blatant untruths. (1) "rapid response to change the name used for the country to 'Macedonia' in several other articles": I didn't change many names to plain "Macedonia". I changed a couple from "F.Y.R." to "R. o. M.", but that was around 31 March, not after Chris' page move; after 16 April I mostly only fixed links, and I did so conservatively, in order to ease a possible return of the article to R.o.M. – (2) "... which was the proximate cause for the injunction that no such changes be made": this is obviously untrue: there is no injunction not to make changes to article text. We only have an injunction not to move pages. And I never moved pages, so whatever I did in the articles wasn't the cause of the injunction. – (3) "almost fawning admiration and dedication to ChrisO" is of course bullshit not worth any response, and really beneath even your level. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You are still spreading untruths. Get your facts straight. The changes that Avg was unhappy with and which prompted him to ask the arbs for their widened injunctions (unsuccessfully, as you well know) were those I made in late March and early April, changing FYROM to R.o.M. in Greece-related articles – in consequence of what I then thought and still think was the valid result of the preceding Greece poll – and in a few unrelated article where stray "FYROM"s had been in use contrary to the long-standing consensus. Between 16 and 21 April, in reaction to ChrisO's page move, I mostly fixed links, and in that process again fixed a few stray "FYROM"s and some variants thereof, mostly in obscure articles where they should never have occurred either. During those days, I changed "FYROM" to plain "Macedonia" in a whopping 6 cases, if I am counting right, plus "FYROM" to "RoM" in one, and "RoM" to "M." in one. These were low-profile articles like Vyacheslav_Malafeev or A-ok. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You actually removed links to Macedonia and other things, which as I remember was the proximate cause for the addendum to the injunction. Your motivations are your own concern. I realize you have an arrogant, abrasive attitude in general at this point, possibly endemically. However, if you are going to post here in the future, be a bit more calm, or basically realize that anything you add can be and probably will be deleted without necessarily even being read. My own tolerance of your conduct is beginning to wane precipitously, and I doubt very seriously if I as an individual will tolerate any more conduct of this kind. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, will you first clean up your lies against me or not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe they are accuate. If you wish to contest that, please produce evidence that I was wrong, and I will acknowledge it. However, this is a formal warning. I have already noted that on your own talk page you have recently had to be told by one of the arbitrators to begin to act like an adult, as you apparently have not been doing for some time. If you can verify my statements are inaccurate to me, I will gladly withdraw them. If you cannot, then I am formally asking you to remove yourself and your ill-mannered, arrogant, abusive self from this page. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Easy. Avg made his injunction request on the 19th of April [6], evidently as a follow-up to a discussion [7] that was about my edits to articles such as Staffordshire University and 2007 Fort Dix attack plot. Those were among the articles I had edited around 31 March, long before ChrisO's move, and where I had merely changed "FYROM" to "RoM" [8], [9]. This had nothing to do with what I was doing after 18 April, when I was fixing links to plain Macedonia. During those days I was going through the "whatlinkshere" to plain "Macedonia" and changing [[Macedonia]] to [[Macedonia (country)|]], [[Macedonia (region)|]] or any of the other variants. In the huge majority of those cases, I made no changes to the display string at all. These were uncontroversial technical fixes of links that had been errors all along (because under the previous page arrangement they were pointing to the dab page), and as I pointed out to Avg at one point, they were in fact beneficial for an eventual moving back of the main article, and would have been necessary especially if his wish had been fulfilled and the article move had been reverted on the spot. (If Avg may nevertheless still have been unhappy about them, that would have been so irrational I really couldn't help it.)

Only in a small number of cases, where articles had irregular versions, did I make some incidental changes of the actual wording, as follows:

• "FYROM" -> "Macedonia": 3 instances [10], [11], [12]
• "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" -> "Macedonia": 1 instance [13]
• "FYR Macedonia" -> "Macedonia": 1 instance [14]
• "Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of" -> "Macedonia": 1 instance [15]
• "FYRO Macedonia" -> "Republic of Macedonia": 1 instance [16]
• "Republic of Macedonia" -> "Macedonia": 1 instance [17]

Only in two or three of these 8 cases could it be argued that the previous version would have been justified even under the MOSMAC arrangements favoured by Avg, and only two came before Avg's request. I am not aware that Avg ever took notice of these few cases, and they were most certainly not the "proximate cause" of his request for an injunction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I went over your actions after the page move myself earlier today, and I more or less can verify that you did what you said above, which, as your own links indicate, was that you were changing the previous content from whatever was being used as the name for the country to "Macedonia", in accord with your dear friend ChrisO's move of that article. As I remember right, I saw that at the time as well and it was because of those changes of the name to "Macedonia" that I supported the injunction against changing the name. Thank you for having provided clear evidence that you were, if only at a small degree initially, changing the content to "Macedonia", without consensus for that move having yet been even remotely established, and seemingly to prop up ChrisO's own at best dubious actions. I think you can understand that right now I am on the last few pages of a section of a the book which I am using to write the reading list for the Christianity project, and I don't want to lose my place and try to have to find it again by interrupting. Give me a chance to finish the section and I will determine what changes might be indicated on my comment based on your evidence. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Still not true. I also changed technically irregular links to "the Republic of Macedonia" to straightforward "the Republic of Macedonia", and as the list above shows I also changed FYROM variants to regular Republic of Macedonia where appropriate, so it is simply not true that I changed "whatever was being used" to "Macedonia". I never touched the large bulk of articles that used the regular "Republic of Macedonia" or even "FYR Macedonia" conventions during those days, where they were regularly linked. The only case where I changed something away from "Republic of Macedonia" was that one instance which had the technically botched-up link form "[[Macedonia|Republic of Macedonia]]". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you now saying that your own material added above is untrue, about the changes you made? And does it ever occur to you, I wonder, to just shut up for a second and give someone a chance to do anything else but listen to your little rants? I said give me a few minutes to finish. Are you capable of doing that, I wonder? John Carter (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)