User talk:John Carter
|This editor has joined in opposition to the targeting of editors by the correct "Point of View" and "Ideology" crowd so that the majority of us can keep the encyclopedia free for anyone to edit and not let it become the encyclopedia edited only by those who have yet to do something unacceptable to the easily-offended.
- 1 Introducing the new WikiProject Ghana!
- 2 A barnstar for you!
- 3 Precious anniversary
- 4 ArbCom reform proposal
- 5 Isidor Sauers - skeptic?
- 6 Alejo Carpentier and WikiProject African diaspora
- 7 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 8 Trump difficulties
- 9 Your help in a Catholic saint article
- 10 German Wikipedia
- 11 Thank you
- 12 Additional thanks
- 13 Need input on a Maldivian name
- 14 Zuyud
- 15 RfC on "No paid editing for Admins" at WT:COI
- 16 This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2017)
- 17 Thanks
- 18 Re: Talk:St. Joseph's Cathedral, Asmara
- 19 This week's article for improvement (week 8, 2017)
- 20 Red-linked categories
- 21 This week's article for improvement (week 9, 2017)
- 22 March 2017 WikiCup newsletter
- 23 WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 10
- 24 This week's article for improvement (week 10, 2017)
- 25 This week's article for improvement (week 11, 2017)
- 26 This week's article for improvement (week 12, 2017)
- 27 Saint Nicholas / Santa Clause....
- 28 This week's article for improvement (week 13, 2017)
- 29 Mentor
- 30 This week's article for improvement (week 14, 2017)
- 31 This week's article for improvement (week 15, 2017)
- 32 This week's article for improvement (week 16, 2017)
- 33 This week's article for improvement (week 17, 2017)
- 34 This week's article for improvement (week 18, 2017)
- 35 May 2017 WikiCup newsletter
- 36 This week's article for improvement (week 19, 2017)
- 37 This week's article for improvement (week 20, 2017)
- 38 This week's article for improvement (week 21, 2017)
Introducing the new WikiProject Ghana!
I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Ghana! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 3,474 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in Ghana.
- Browse the new WikiProject page
- Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system
A barnstar for you!
|The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar|
|Thank you for your kind comments about my Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia, at my appeal request to work on Quality improvement for an article I'd previously brought to WP:GA quality, Typewriter in the Sky.
You didn't have to go over there and put yourself on the line like that and comment on my behalf, but you did anyways, and I thank you for it.
I'll work with my mentor The Rambling Man and do my best to learn from his example and guidance.
- Cirt, believe me when I say that you don't have much that you need to learn from anyone around here, and I sincerely hope that the Arbs come to realize that soon. Your contributions are some of the most consistently impressive we have around here, and it is an honor to be able to help out in a small way someone who has done as much as you have, over as long as you have been here, and still has the spirit and drive to improve this site that you have. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, John Carter. I hope, in time, your views regarding my Quality improvement efforts will be shared by more editors within our Wikipedia community. Hopefully someday. :) But for now, I'll go back to attempting to improve the articles that I can — to higher levels of quality including WP:GA and WP:FA. If you've got any advice on how to bring about the change in perspective you wish for, above, John Carter, I'd appreciate it. — Cirt (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom reform proposal
Just thinking here. Maybe one way to revise things might be to create an umbrella entity, perhaps a Dispute Resolution Committee, which might be eligible for election.
At least in my eyes, one of the big reasons for the problems of the ArbCom last year was that both User:Newyorkbrad and User:Kirill Lokshin were gone, and there were no immediately obvious replacements for them. User:Doug Weller and User:DGG, the two members of the board who would at least strike me as being the leading candidates for the sage positions vacated by those two, were both new that year, and, given the greatly reduced number of cases lately, it took a while for them to know the ropes and the others to learn how they work. The reduced caseload and possible/probable loss of institutional memory with the loss of old hands could well have been one of the big problems then.
I know a hell of a lot less about MedCom and other entities, but I think maybe one way to ensure that we don't lose the institutional memory aspect might be to create a DRC from which the arbs for any individual case can be drawn. Granted, I don't expect Brad to want to join every case after retirement, God knows I wouldn't want to, but it could very easily be very beneficial for the other members of the committee to have access to him for a particular case, maybe even in a "rotating chair" or something like that.
So, as a sort of proposal, have elections every year to elect a largish number of members of DRC or similar. Say, for instance, 60 members. All qualified editors are welcome to sign a predetermined number of petitions for candidates, up to and including "draft" petitions, and those which get sufficient signatures are on the ballot. Then, allow each qualified editor to vote, preferably for only a smaller number of candidates, for instance 30. The top 60 votegetters are determined, and then those 60 individuals cast the final, deciding, public votes for who are the 12 individuals on the "standing" ArbCom, MedCom, ArbCom clerks, AE enforcers, and the like. I figure only about half of those 60 would actually get "standing" positions, which is really what I would want. This would give the bottom 30 finishers a chance to maybe take one a case or two to see if they really want to do that. preferably with the help of an old hand, and maybe more actively seek a "standing" position in a following year if they want to take that role on regularly.
But, if all 60 were, at least theoretically, capable of filling any of the positions for a given year, we might have a much better chance of avoiding the discontinuity of community memory and leadership which I think happened when Kirll and Brad left the ArbCom.
- 1) Arb com is complicated enough already.. We should be looking at procedures to simplify the process.
- 2) Perhaps I have a prejudice here, but the difficulties last year were not due to lack of experience of myself or the other new people. If anything, perhaps there were last year altogether too many people on that committee whose long experience led them to an apparent commitment to entrenched ways of doing things; I at least certainly felt difficulty in getting an effective voice, especially in internal discussions. But the real difficulties were due to the unfortunate but unavoidable situation that several major cases had no really satisfactory solution. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, you, having been there and all, would probably know a hell of a lot more about it than me, who wasn't there. :) But, maybe, the "entrenchment" you speak of might be a symptom of loss of earlier leadership, I dunno. Regarding simplification, I think in a sense this might be a bit simpler. One of the problems that several have commented on is that few people really read the questions to candidates, and the sometimes questionable nature of the questions, and act however they would anyway, generally based on possibly questionable opinion they have as outsiders to the system who know the system even less than well than I might. Creating a publicly seen final discussion among the electeds might make it easier for at least that select group to deal with what they might see as real issues involved. And, a proposal like this, of the House/Senate type, sort of, might be a bit easier for a lot of people in the US anyway to understand, although I admit it might be harder for non-US people or people who don't have a bicameral system to follow. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not quite clear on your proposal: how are the 48 members not on the standing sub-committee "drawn" to participate in an arbitration committee task? Are you envisioning that for each task, be it a case, an appeal review, responding to incoming email, and so forth, that X number of people be drawn from the pool of 48, and added to those from the standing sub-committee who are also participating in the task? On a side note, I don't see how this relates to a bicameral system, where there are two separate deliberative bodies, and they act as a balance for each other. (Unless you are suggesting that any task be replicated by the standing sub-committee and the rest of the larger committee, independently?) This is more like an organization forming a sub-committee with a set of standing members and a set of rotating guest members. isaacl (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- First, I think it worth noting that the proposed board is where not only the ArbCom itself would be drawn from, but also maybe the MedCom, the Arb clerks, the regular AE enforcers, and other similar functionaries be drawn from. Basically, if something like this were done, the 60 or so would elect all the holders of those positions, which would probably be about 30 or so people. The other 30 who aren't selected and haven't yet filled such functions could, at request, if they wanted to, maybe ask to take part in specific processes (individual Arb cases, Med cases, clerking for a single case, etc.) which more or less requires selection of some sort, as either an observer or additional member of the "team", under the supervision of an existing "team" member to see if they might think they want to more actively seek such a post in the future. And, yeah, you're right, it is more like legislative committee appointments and officer selection than a bicameral legislature. John Carter (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Isidor Sauers - skeptic?
I was just casting around for things to clean up and fix in Wikiproject Skepticism, and I noticed the article Isidor Sauers. WAY back in October 2007 you tagged into the project (here's the diff: ). I'm just curious - why? I've pored over the current state of the article and done some Googling of this fellow and I can't for the life of me figure out his connection to Skepticism. Apologies in advance if I'm missing something obvious here. --Krelnik (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Krelnik: I'm guessing the article has been changed a bit since then, maybe. That page is currently included in the Category:Scientific skepticism, and that was probably the reason for the tagging, but it might be that the content supporting for that categorization has been perhaps removed. John Carter (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Alejo Carpentier and WikiProject African diaspora
Hi John Carter, Just wondering why you added Alejo Carpentier to the list of articles "belonging" to wp:WikiProject African diaspora and rated it importance=Top on 22 August 2012? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
The Donald Trump article will be an extremely hard article to bring up to average Wikipedia standards, not to mention GA or FA. It will probably involve much fighting and many months. Either that or one group of people will wear out the other 2-3 groups. Compounding the problem is that Trump is very controversial. About 52% of people voting did not want him. Another 25% had negative feelings toward him even though they voted for him. That leaves maybe 20% that either support him a little or a lot, 80% don't like him or viciously hate him.
I feel it is beyond my expertise to fight a talk page battle so I will leave it to more experienced hands like you (or 3 others that I wrote to). Below is a link to my sandbox, which shows an edited version that does 3 things. 1. It fixes the jumping back and forth of related areas that are placed apart (there's quite a bit of that). 2. Trims down some trivia. 3. The lead represents a better summary and also is the permitted 4 paragraphs. I did not edit the political and campaign sections yet and don't intend to.
Consider commenting on the Donald Trump talk page about this sample revision. I do not plan on extensive discussion on the talk page and will leave it up to you. Let me know what you think.
Your help in a Catholic saint article
Dear sir I had made a request for TFA of Mother Teresa i have seen it has a multiple of issues and I have seen it has been removed from Good article list also I request your help in the article as I find u more helpful in making the article great in a Catholic topic --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 07:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
And a happy new year as well JarrahTree 23:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC) You may well be semi retired - I think of full retirement when I encounter some of the genius and sheer mindless perversity on this damned thing, but, you have always been there to help with the damned project tweaking, it is both appreciated and honoured - and may it serve you well sir ! (I am sure that it channelling a John Lennon line, but damned if I can remember from where ) JarrahTree 23:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- At this point, I am far from being an everyday editor here like a lot of others are, which is a form of retirement, and am also trying to develop wikisource on my own, and, maybe, talking others into it, which reduces the amount of time I spend here. And I thank you for your very kind words above. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am now even honoured to have you as an eminent page stalker while I sleep (at 8+), my thanks and appreciation moves higher... may your capacity to sleep well in face of the world changing friday, this friday be allayed (or should that be the propensity and propinquity for sleep if we allow the terms to invade wikipedia talk pages) by residence in a country of very strange people JarrahTree 00:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Need input on a Maldivian name
Hi! I need someone who has access to some decent sources for the geography of the Maldives to resolve a question at Talk:Inguraidhoo (Raa Atoll)#Requested move 5 January 2017. Thanks for whatever light you can shed on it! — Gorthian (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey, so, in 2008 you created this article Zuyud, with the "Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates. Washington, D.C. : Defense Mapping Agency, 1987" as a reference. I have not for the life of me been able to find a copy of this document (or book? I'm not sure) to verify or find any other information about this place. Do you still have your copy, or know where to find one? And if so, could you point me towards it? I haven't been able to find any other sources for anything about Zuyud and I'm hoping that the Gazetteer might help. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2017 (U
- @PMC: It is listed at WorldCat here but from what I remember it didn't have much more than I added to that article, considering it is public domain as a government publication and I could reproduce most if not all of it anyway. John Carter (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I've relisted an RfC that was run at WT:Admin in Sept. 2015. It is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 3 as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2017)
But now that he's posted to the article talk page I doubt he'll read mine. There is something weird going on with the university press release. Nothing Jordanian is a reliable source fir this so far as I can see. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Re: Talk:St. Joseph's Cathedral, Asmara
Well, Til Eulenspiegel was once of those I was alluding to -- he also edited as Codex Sinaiticus at first, I believe -- but the one I was indirectly praising was Yom, who wrote some of the Ethiopian articles which properly were graded as GAs. (And I seriously wish would come back & contribute more.) In any case, we never had more than 3 or at most 4 editors at once who were fluent in Amharic, Tigrigna, or Somali, so even banning one would be banning a significant share of them. And if we include all three languages, I believe as many as three or four who have these skills have been banned. Sigh. It would be nice if this were a statistical anomaly, but IMHO they are more zealous about getting their viewpoints into Wikipedia than is good for them. It's a symptom of living in a part of the world where freedom of speech cannot be taken for granted. -- llywrch (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 8, 2017)
I have removed 3 red-linked categories from your userpage, by converting them to links. So the text still displays, just a little differently.
I know that they were intended to be humorous (and I particularly like "Bozos with delusions of self-propelled interstellar travel"), but unfortunately the category system was not designed to be used this way. Per WP:REDNOT, either the category should be created, or else the nonexistent category link should be removed or changed .
That's because categories are intended for navigation, so unlike articles (where redlinks are often appropriate), redlinked categories are always an error: they are a broken form of navigation. That's why there are there various tools to help identify them and either remove them or turn them blue. The most useful tool is Special:WantedCategories, which amends itself to strike out categories which have been reslved. Unfortunately the work of editors who go through that list fixing the errors is impeded by the presence on that list of userpage categories which are intended to remain as redlinks. So some of the errors never get cleared, and the first page in particular has many such categories. This obviously makes the cleanup harder.
I wasn't aware of this myself until last month, and when I saw how my redlinked categories were impeding cleanup, I removed them, and got to work assisting the cleanup. I hope you'll agree that converting the categories to redlinks isn't too big a price to pay for helping maintain the category system.
- I may be confused but this seems like part of a two-pronged "attack" whereby the cat specialists are arguing that redlinked categories cause maintenance problems and that, when converted to bluelinks, they should be deleted per USERCAT. There is an ongoing discussion, the latest being a RfC, in which you, BHG, has been vociferous. Assuming that I have read it correctly (and it is convoluted, so perhaps I have not), this conversion appears to be rather disingenuous. I know for sure that the cat people have messed around like this before but I'd rather hoped that you were above such shenanigans. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sitush, a little AGF please. There are no shenanigans. There is a genuine maintenance problem, as outlined above.
- If there is a consensus to allow new types of user category, so be it. But whatever happens there, redlinked categories impede maintenance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 9, 2017)
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:
- Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
- Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
- 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
- Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.
The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.
So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 10
This month, we discuss the new CollaborationKit extension. Here's an image as a teaser:
23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 10, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 11, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 12, 2017)
Saint Nicholas / Santa Clause....
In the Article Page Saint Nicholas......
I placed in references to the Book St Nicholas by Joe Wheeler & Jim Rosental......
However they have been changed to a vague and un-sourced wording.....
Could a ruling be made about sources and references, particularly, when someone is using sources for their own thoughts and writings.... ???
I have quoted my comments in the talk page..... below:
"..............In the Article Page..... the key reference to the Saint's name is now:
"....Saint Nicholas became the model for Santa Claus, whose modern name comes from the Dutch Sinterklaas, itself from a series of elisions and corruptions of the transliteration of "Saint Nikolaos." When the Dutch originally came to America and established the colony of New Amsterdam, they brought the legend and traditions of Sinterklaas with them. The New Amsterdam Dutch later shortened "Sinterklaas" to "Santa Claus." ......."
This has the only direct reference to Joe Wheeler & Jim Rosental's book St Nicholas.....
The direct wording is...... Pg 166:
"... The New Amsterdam Dutch shortened "Sinterklaas" to "Santa Claus". They mean the same thing: "Holy" or Saint" Nicholas....."
There is no mention of "the model of Santa Claus"...... There is no mention of: " a series of elisions and corruptions of the transliteration of Saint Nikolaos..."
That is foreign to the book...... and the reference does not fit......
The proper reference to this has to be found.... or it has to be deleted......
"a series of elisions and corruptions" indicates that there was a history of the change of the name..... Hence, a reference is needed for this.....
Using the book mentioned to this vague reference dishonours the Authors of the book......
I will be seeking a category listing and ruling on vague / un-sourced entries.....
MacOfJesus (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
MacOfJesus (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)........"
This week's article for improvement (week 13, 2017)
For the past months I have been viewing your works on Wikipedia. They are truy a pice of art. New to the website, I was wondering if you could be my mentor? It would be greatly appreciated, as we have the same interests and knowledge. Coolwikieditor (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 14, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 15, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 16, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 17, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 18, 2017)
The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:
- Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
- 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
- Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
- Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.
Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.
So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)