User talk:JCarriker/Archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hey, J Carriker,

I think that you should be nominated for administration on Wikipedia. If you accept, please tell me on my talk page, and I'd be glad to nominate you. Take care, Horatii/Dbraceyrules 21:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


I appreciate the gesture, but I must inform you that I'm already an admin. If you'd like I can return the favor and nominate you at Rfa, in a few weeks. However I am currently pushing for a seat on the Mediation Committee, if you're interested in voicing your support for me there in the outside opinion section (only mediators can elect mediators). -JCarriker 21:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

lol, I didn't know you were an admn. I supported you on the Mediation Committee, but no thanks on being an administrator. I already use the computer at my house enough. Thanks anyway. Horatii/Dbraceyrules 21:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

re: American West[edit]

Per your request, I audited your tally of the VfD discussion. I documented my thoughts on your Sandbox page. (I hope that's where you wanted them. Please delete or move the comments if not.)

I really don't want to butt in because I don't know all the history and don't know if you have had interactions with some of the others in this discussion which were independent of the discussion threads I reviewed. My reaction as I read the various discussions was that you appear to be taking this issue quite personally - and I couldn't figure out why. I think I understand the arguments on both sides of this debate. My interpretation is that this is a "vision" question - you all are trying to decide if the article will be about the current "American West" or the historical "American West" and where you will draw that line. This is clearly a difficult decision because the term that is inherently ambiguous. Either way the decision is made, the article is likely to overlap with existing articles. It's the nature of a wiki that we sort them out through discussion, consensus and rather a lot of trial and error. I wish I could help but I have no opinion or relevant knowledge on the best way to organize this particular set of articles. Good luck. Rossami (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


Welcome to the Mediation Committee! I've moved you from the nominations section to the active mediators section since the nomination was well supported and had no opposition in over a month. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation would be a good place to start. Good luck. :) Angela. 04:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hatchet job on Hatshepsut[edit]

Sorry. Saw her & an anon flash by together on my watchlist, but I was having more of a Latin American day than an Egyptian one. Hajor 21:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Jay, I took a look at this article, & tweaked it a bit. Looks good to me, although you may want to list it on RfC first, just to cross the t's & dot the i's. -- llywrch 00:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Accurate contributions[edit]

I am setting ground rules for this mediation and some things I want both of you to understand:

1. Assume good faith; if both of you are to reach a resolution you must learn to but the past behind you and work towards the future.
2. Since 80.??? IP is rotatting I must insist that he set up a user account, I can't preside over medidation if I can't decern the authenticity of contributions.
3.My talk page is not the proper forum for a mediation, the mediation will take place at Talk:Nick Adams.
4. I am a neutral party, I cannot and will not rule on the veracity of your arguements. I will try to facilitate an enviroment in which both of you can reach a mutual understanding, even if theat understanding is that mediation is not the best option for either of you.
5. If either of you wants outside opinions, that is what Wikipedia:Requests for comment is for, if you have both already have decided that a compromise is not possible with the other side— then your time would be better spent at Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. If you both desire to try to reach a compromise you have come to the proper venue.

1-3 are my ground rules, 4&5 are to help both of you better understand what mediation is and what my role will be. Thanks -JCarriker 05:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Understood and abided. Wyss 05:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, I have now created a Wikipedia account. I will be on vacation with my family the next two weeks. In the meantime, an administrator or mediator may decide if some details of my last edits are in line with the Wikipedia policies and may be reinstated. See [1] - [2] - [3]. Good luck and keep me postet on your progress. I will reply in detail later. Onefortyone 21:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for trying! I think you've done the most you could do, skillfully and in good faith. Please see my reply on my talk page. Wyss 02:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I've replied in turn back on my page. I'm always open to suggestions by the way (for example, if you don't agree with me), so please feel free! Wyss 02:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


Tnx. It is harmless, but usless, so I will delete it as some trash (there is no User:Piotruś and this subpage was made by an anon). I wonder - how did you find it?? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet checks[edit]

I can't do sockpuppet checks. Only David Gerard and Tim Starling have access to CheckUser to see the IPs of these users. However, using the "old-fashioned" approach of looking at user contributions, I'd say it's extremely unlikely they're the same person. I'll explain why by email. Angela. 03:10, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this will help:

  • See Elvis Presley history page
    • (cur) (last) 20:25, July 26, 2005 Wyss m (rv to last by Ted Wilkes)
    • (cur) (last) 20:25, July 26, 2005 Ted Wilkes (Removing POV notice for the 2nd time by Anonymous User:


Again seeking your opinion, I promised DialUp that after the maps were implemented, and they have been, we would take up the category issue. How does this sound to you, delte the States of clause or restrict it only to regions that have cultures associated them, (Can you imagine what a jungle the tops of article would be come if State of... was used for every region.). An use the same 'blank of -ern US (New England, PNW) for other categories. What doest thou think? Tell me and I'll make a rough draft followed by a formal proposal. Thanks. -JCarriker 04:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I have almost no idea what you are talking about. I have never looked into these categories. I don't have any particular interest in doing so. I suggest you talk a look in the histories to see who has worked on this stuff and bring them into the loop. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but, again, I have no interest in working on this. At all. Out of several thousand Wikipedia contributors, why do you keep coming to me on this? If you like, I will remove my name from the WikiProject. I joined it only because of some specific concerns, long since resolved. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • In general, I am glad to help, but I've never looked at the categories related to U.S. regions (and I'm sure plenty of people have), and I can't understand the question you are asking me. I have no idea how much I'd have to read to understand your question. I've been doing my best to help you on this regions stuff, and I've already spent at least 5 hours on things I'm not really interested in. But I literally don't even understand the question, so I can't form an opinion. Maybe if you can rephrase the question in a way that makes sense to someone not immersed in the U.S. regions work, then I can be helpful. I have no idea what it would mean to "delte [delta? delete?] the States of clause" ( nor what the "States of clause" is, nor where to start looking for it). I have no idea what "blank of -ern US (New England, PNW)" is supposed to be, except for guessing that PNW is "Pacific Northwest", etc. If you can ask me something I can understand, sure, I'm willing to give it a somee thought. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the recent attempt was much clearer. And it sounds reasonable. The thing is, though, that not having been involved much in the categorization in this area, I don't know what we have now, so I don't know how much of this is an improvement. I only see three reasonable ways for you to go on this: "be bold" and see who screams; make your proposal on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and see if there is any response; or look at who has created or discussed the current categories, and who has put articles into these categories, and try to engage them in a discussion of how to proceed... or at least notify them that you are placing a proposal on the Pump.

I would suggest that generally it is appropriate for a category to narrow the geographic scope of a parent category. So it would be perfectly reasonable to have a Category:Cultures of the Pacific Northwest inherit from Category:Cultures of the Western United States, which in turn would inherit from Category:Cultures of the United States. I'm not stating that those would be the specific titles, just laying out the principle.

You say that certain regions don't particularly "have cultures" (of their own, I presume, distinct from just a U.S. culture), but of course they do. For starters, every sizable portion of the United States has or had several Native American cultures. We might not write an article on Culture of the Upper Midwest, but if we wrote an article Culture of the Ojibwa it might belong in Category:Cultures of the Upper Midwest. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Universities again on Houston, Texas[edit]

I have brought up a point of disagreement between UH Collegian and myself on the talk page. I have made an appeal to him to change his mind and he may, but if not I'd value your opinion on the subject, whether you agree with my stance or not, to help establish a consensus. Thanks in advance. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Western United States[edit]

I've protected the article and redirect as you suggested. Do you want it to go to RfC so some other people can tell the socks they're wrong, or are you going to wait and hope they go away?--nixie 12:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • No need for a personal RfC unless they've been really vile. On Wikipedia:Requests for comment you can request outside comment for content disputes, you just list the page and the basic detail of the dispute and other users come to the talk page comment. Its been pretty effective the few times I've used it. --nixie 12:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, he's certainly been a bit uncivil, I could certify that. The rest, though, I'm just not familiar with. I think I put that page on my watchlist while doing a general sweep of anything that could be Texas-related, and I'm totally unfamiliar with the dispute or even what exactly the dispute is over. Maybe you can give me a thumbnail? · Katefan0(scribble) 14:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

You asked me

...CPret slips and admits he's DHarjo and threatens to POV Western United States. I've asked several users to protect Western US and American West, and Nixie has. Not asking you to get involved with this problem user but what do you think I should do? I'm tired of dealing with this POV troll and his childish antics, should I file an RFC against him? -JCarriker 12:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Might be worth doing. I would suggest, though, that certainly none of this is bannable, and I think it would be important that if you start an RfC you make it clear that you are not looking for a ban (or probably any action at this time), simply indicating what you see as a pattern of problem editing (including inappropriate use of a sockpuppet) and wishing to establish the RfC page so that if other problems arise there is a record. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

In my view, an RfC is a place to gather information. Link to the specific edits that raise issues. Comment on them. Clearly, if something he said indicates a sockpuppet, link to the edit that indicates that. List exactly what policies have been violated. Explain (briefly, again with specific links) your efforts to resolve the problems. Find at least one other person who has also interacted with him, tried to work through some of these issues, and can add to or endorse your description. And expect that all you are doing is establishing a record of what occurred, not somehow remedying it. This is a necessary first step toward any remedy. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

You definitely want to:

  1. link the specific edit that indicates sockpuppetry.
  2. format it like a proper RfC
  3. check your spelling. For example, "soley" ==> "solely".

Jmabel | Talk 01:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

References in Hatshepsut[edit]

hi, thanks for your suggestion; let me try to follow it. My personal preference is that you should think of the areas where you either know specific good sources or have used them yourself. Put in references (with page numbers) for everything that you reasonably can. The reason is that you are at present probably the best expert on your topic available at the moment. If you put in the references now, then when some less expert person wants to check something they can do it much more quickly than they could otherwise.

However, you asked for five points, so here are some I can suggest..

  • Although the belief that Hatshepsut and Senemut were lovers [...] among Egyptologists which ones? is there a text with a summary of the dispute?
  • many Egyptologists have claimed that her foreign policy was mainly peaceful a reference to a few of the most renowned would be great at this point (the follow on sentence could also do with a reference to the evidence)
  • and has proven valuable in learning how obelisks were quarried. sounds interesting.. please reference the studies which learned from this
  • Hatshepsut disappeared with no record of her death
  • has led to the theory that the unidentified mummy might be Hatshepsut

and a special bonus

  • in some cases this is thought to have been an act of damnatio memoriae

I think some good thoughts are:

  • Avoid weasel terms; wherever you say "many experts say" or something similar give some references. Incidentally, this is actually a good solution to the "Weasle dispute", it's okay to say "some experts believe" if you give a reference which shows which ones it actually is; in this way you can keep a nice flow of your writing.
  • be very clear to avoid pliagarism. wherever any text has been used as the basis of some facts then reference it. Here we should go much furthern than copyright / fair use would dictate. This is good because
    • if the text is wrong then later the source of a mistake can be traced
    • we give credit where it is due
    • if you misunderstood or mistyped something, later editors can easily correct it.
  • wherever someone is likely to want to learn more, reference so they can find where to start
  • wherever some point is likely to be disputed by someone, give a reference

Finally, if you get to the stage where there are too many references, e.g. more than 30 to 50 in an article (this is a matter of taste, not rule) then you can consider using invisible references for some of them. These are only visible to editors.

All the best. Mozzerati 19:04, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

thank you[edit]


thank you for creating the Southeastern tribes article. it is nice to finally see something about culture areas. peace – ishwar  (speak) 00:39, 2005 July 27 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

Per Change back! Damn that was ugly, I'm not sure of what exactly it was you thought was ugly, however I myself am an admirer of African art; though I must say that whatever that elephant was doing I'm sure it's illegal in Mississippi, Florida, and most other Southern states. :) Also congrats on your 1,000th edit. Cheers! -JCarriker 22:36, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ha, ha. Yeah it was pretty ugly so I though hieroglyphics would be better. And thanks for the congrats! : ) Take care, Dbraceyrules 14:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


Please update Template:MedComOpenTasks (list current cases) and Template:Medcom#Active_Mediators (add * for each current case) to reflect your current status. Sinreg, -St|eve 23:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC) P.S. New rules in testing: No absolute consensus for mediation (else to WP:RFAR), and MC:Chair assignment of mediators, rather than disputant agreement (given no confict)

PPS: Would you be able to assist with one of the WP:RFM#Other? -SV


I'd like to invite you to read WikiProject U.S. regions main page, and if your interested in our goals join as a participant. Be sure and let me know what you think. -JCarriker 23:52, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my computer is such a piece of crap that that would never work out. Wish I could help though. :-( Dbraceyrules 00:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand why your computer would make this any different than editing other pages. Could you please explain. Thanks. -JCarriker 18:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I thought someday I'd have to upload a map or something, and I don't even have a scanner. I'll have a better computer soon, though (around my birthday). I'll be onboard then.Dbraceyrules 18:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

U.S. regions[edit]

What is the deal with changing the new maps on U.S. regions repeatedly? Fill me in on this. Thanks! UH Collegian 01:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


Hey there, thanks for the message! And congratulations on making everything official with the Mediation committee. They need the help (I'm involved in a mediation over Houston Chronicle that Mgml is supposed to be handling, but I've been waiting more than a month for it to start!). Anyway, just wanted to let you know that it appears that UHC and I have reached some small agreement for now; he moved one of the redundant shots of downtown to the HMA page. I still do think that the article has too many photographs of buildings that show pretty much exactly the same view (downtown and Uptown mostly), to the exclusion of other images of Houston that would show off other unique things about the city (for example, I have a nice shot of a shuttle flying over JSC that would complement the article greatly, though I'm not attached to any one subject -- I'd just like to see one shot of downtown, not three, and some other items besides buildings represented). Unfortunately we've reached no agreement between the two of us over whether Rice or UH should come first, but there appears to me to be a clear consensus on the talk page for my preference. I'd rather have him on board, so I haven't pushed the issue and probably won't for now since I'll be on vacation soon. I'm leaving Saturday for Galveston where I'll be in a beachhouse for a week with little access to email. I have thought about adminship, and a couple people have asked me if I wasn't interested. I am of course, but had wanted to make sure I had been around long enough and been able to get my hands dirty enough with practical applications of policy and WP's nooks and crannies before I went down that road. I see being an admin not only as being someone with some keys to a broom closet (although that's certainly important), but also as a sort of ambassador in certain situations, to make yourself available to help people when you can. Anyway, and thank you for the explainer on the situation with DHarjo. It makes more sense to me now. I don't think that I am really cut out for being a participant in the wikiproject, but I am more than happy to participate in the West page, or anything related to Texas. I feel, though, like I need to have a better idea of all the history on the West page before I can weigh in either way, so I'm going to leave that until after my vacation. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


Nah, you wouldn't have to scan in anything we already have existing maps that can be modified at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. regions/Maps. What's needed most are active participants who can discuss policy and work to have it implemented. For instance a POV pusher, with sockpuppets, has annointed himself to wage holy war on Western United States seeking to eradicate all infidels; read defintions of the West that don't mathc his opinion. Another one has flared up over the new standardized map series, a user is reverting to the grab-bag images claiming they are more "accurate and were agreed upon by consensus", neither of which there is any evidence supporting. Interestingly he uploaded many of the maps he wants to keep, no mention of that though. As I told you earlier wikipedia is an apathetic place, many people support the idea and goals of the WikiProject- few will fight for it, what I desperately need, and this is not to discourage you from uploading maps in the future, is backup and I could really use it right now on Talk:Western United States and wikipedia Talk:WikiProject U.S. regions -JCarriker 03:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

WikiThanks.png I joined, thanks for the heads up. Dbraceyrules 18:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)