- NOTE: This page is unfortunately frequently protected because of vandalism. If for whatever reason you are an IP editor or newcomer who finds that he cannot edit this page because of such protection, please feel free to make any reasonable comments at User talk:John Carter/IP. Thank you, and my apologies for the inconvenience.
![]() | Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. |
User:Jake Wartenberg/centijimbo
Re: GabrielVelasquez
John, the personal attacks are certainly an ongoing problem, but more concerning is the use of an IP account, 24.78.166.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for edit warring and 3RR violation. The user made more than six straight reverts on the 30 September just from this account. When protection was implemented, GabrielVelasquez showed up out of the blue, warning 24.78.166.69's opponents about edit warring, making the same arguments, and using the same edit summaries. At least two users (myself and User:ChiZeroOne, possibly others) have asked GV to clarify if 24.78.166.69 is his account. Although it is obvious that it is, GV refuses to address the question. I could file an SPI, but I was hoping I could get GV to voluntarily agree to stop using two accounts and stick with one. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- John, I just confirmed and verified, via evidence that GV provided in his contribution history, that both the IP and GabrielVelasquez are the same user.[1][2][3][4] Could you recommend where to go from here? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Various WikiProject Talkpage edit questions
I was wondering why you added the 'WikiProject Christianity|class=GA|importance=|charismatic-christianity=yes|charistmatic-christianity-importance=' category to the following Talkpages:
- Talk:Axl Rose with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Axl_Rose&curid=150162&diff=388512543&oldid=386450133
- Talk:Anthony Quinn with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony_Quinn&diff=next&oldid=358461034
- Talk:Sly Stone with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sly_Stone&diff=next&oldid=378812871
- Talk:Denzel Washington with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denzel_Washington&diff=388519079&oldid=382052241
- Talk:Demond Wilson with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demond_Wilson&diff=388520317&oldid=330847859
- Talk:Elvis Presley with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elvis_Presley&diff=388511122&oldid=387802791
It seems that some of these people might have perhaps lived in a religious household as a child, but I am not sure about the Charismatics Category for all of them, so would like to know what your rationale is - thanks. Shearonink (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Canon Law
Hey John!
Thanks for contacting me about the Canon law/Laisization debate. I have written something in response to your comment. Thanks!
Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 14:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Renaming of category
I have proposed here to rename Category:Hindu terrorism to Category:Hindutva terrorism, as to be more accurate to the meaning that the terrorism is politically and nationally motivated and not religiously motivated. Please join the discussion. SilverserenC 22:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
This is excellent - at this stage I know that south asia, is dormant, - (and probably needs a workforce to actually get it up and running again)and east asia is proposed but I would prefer to just start tagging and think about the subnationals/parts of the whole later - or is that going to cause problems? SatuSuro 23:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey whenever, no urgency - I have noticed you have been busy - no rush - whenever I start the tagging I want to get a handle on the cat tags before much else in the project - so by looks any timeis good - whenever you are ready - thanks for the help! SatuSuro 23:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I understand now - yes any small bits to be included as well yes SatuSuro 01:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Looking good - I know I can be slow on the uptake at times - do we have a working project tag for the category pages yet? SatuSuro 00:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Amazing - what a lot of work that has been - please - hey take your time no rush - I would very very much like to have a project category tag if it is at all possible - thank you a million times again - it has been great to see the amazing hard work you have put into it! thank you! SatuSuro 00:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Ahah - formatting - I can see I need some practice - viz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Geographical/Asia SatuSuro 00:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Again - looks very good - I hope to do still lots of 'prettying up to do' - and I gotta deconstruct the Death project page and death portal to get a handle on the formatting - but you have put it in place- thank you! SatuSuro 01:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 11:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Your recent edits to the Witch Trials Task Force Page
Please be advised that as you are not a member of our task group you are not welcome to edit our task group page with out first posting your intent to do so on our discussion page and waiting for a response that your actions are not offensive. I am responding to your actions here because it is in line with you constant and witless rant about "asume good faith". If you abuse process with me any further than you already have do not expect me to asume good faith on your part ever again. Hopefully, John5Russell3Finley (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The Jesus Dynasty
I think the NPOV issues are now resolved and have removed the tag. I will look for other positive reviews as the article requires at least one more to balance it. And get a new arching bot :o) mark nutley (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Apologies
Bogged down (even in semi-retirement) on numerous fronts, John, and I deeply apologize for my absence. I just haven't had time to change gear and shift over to that intricate area once more. I'll do my best, if things are soon clarified on that other POV-ridden question about editing Shakespeare. Cheers (and I will in the meantime follow up on Ignatius) Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI
Hey there, hope you are doing well. FYI, regarding a comment you had made about my efforts in the past to improve the quality of a BLP page, I cited your comment, in a thread at BLPN. Just wanted to give you a heads up. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You vandal!
Hmm... Toddst1 (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Ebionites 2 Mediation
Greetings!
I have agreed to mediate the Ebionites 2 case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion for Peter Heier
You recently removed the speedy delete tag I placed on Peter Heier. I see nothing in this article, nor on a Google book search that meets Wikipedia:Notability. Specifically, there is no "significant coverage" consisting of anything more than a "trivial mention". Please let me know if you found a citation to the contrary. Thanks, Dkriegls (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I don't think the link you added meets "significant coverage". Dkriegls (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Invitation to join WikiProject Bacon !
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Bacon_donut.jpg/220px-Bacon_donut.jpg)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Bacon has been created, and you are cordially invited to join, and list yourself as a participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bacon#Participants!
- You may also feel free to add the userbox - {{User Bacon}} - to your userpage, to indicate your participation in the WikiProject.
- The Wikipedia:Bacon WikiCup is also ongoing, more info about that at User:SuperHamster/Bacon Challenge 2011, and User:SuperHamster/Bacon WikiCup 2011.
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I saw your name on the Buddhism Wikiproject and would like some input on this article. The editor in question has a track record of dubious sources, and another editor, who can read Chinese, has commented on this article at my talk page. The subject is fine, eg [5], but not the article. Thanks. (I like my bacon burned, by the way). Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Recent changed to Template:WikiProject Christianity
The recent changes you have made seriously changed this template. Your "typo" edits have made the LDS-work-group and its "importance" stop functioning and I would suspect due to the changes several other groups don't work also. These "typos" aren't really "typos" since they are variable that are defined inside the templates codes, so they can be anything. They need to be undone so this template will work again.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk|contribs) 12:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
An Invitation From Sue Gardner
Dear Wikimedia Project Contributors,
I am the assistant to Sue Gardner, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. Sue and I will be traveling to the United Arab Emirates in early December to attend and speak at TedxDubai on Saturday, December 4. While traveling in Dubai Sue would like to meet with local Wikimedians and other project contributors to learn about your community and to inform you about the Wikimedia Foundation. We find these informal meet-ups a useful way to gather groups of Wikimedians who may enjoy learning about the work of other contributors in their region, and to learn about the work of the Wikimedia Foundation. While in Dubai we plan for Sue to conduct press interviews with mainstream media and to possibility speak at a local university.
The reason I am contact you is to inquire if you are interested in meeting Sue and gathering with other Wikimedians during her upcoming visit. I plan to arrange a private location with light food and beverages in an open space for attendees to share and meet each other. If you are interested to attend or know other Wikimedia contributors who may be interested in attending please email me at jowen@wikimedia.org.
We hope to have the opportunity to meet you in December.
Regards,
James T. Owen
- Executive Assistant & Board Liaison
- Wikimedia Foundation
- Office +1.415.839.6885 x 6604
- Email- jowen@wikimedia.org
- Website- www.wikimediafoundation.org
James Owen (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Do we have to use WP:RS or not?
Thanks for your comment. Calvin is not a lexicographical authority of any repute whatsoever. I wanted to use standard modern lexicographical sources, they want to use Calvin because they share his POV. Calvin would be perfectly at home in an article or section entitled 'Calvinist views on baptism', but that is not how he is being used (my attempts to create such a section on the other baptism page were simply reverted). I still can't find anyone who will tell me why I can't use standard modern lexicographical sources in this article, and why Calvin is a more authoritative source than modern scholarship. Why is this so difficult? Yesterday I took the trouble to do this, but to be perfectly frank what is the point if (a) we don't have to use WP:RS if we don't have to, (b) outdated scholarship is to take precedence over modern scholarship, and (c) sources do not have to meet WP:V?--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice, that was most useful. If only Wikipedia had, you know, polices, which people were, you know, expected to follow. I'll see what can be done. In the meantime, let me know if there's really any point in me listing those resources. If people aren't going to cite them, and if they don't have to cite them, and if we can just grab bits and pieces from 19th century works, then there is no point in me making the offer, and I'll take it to Citizendium, where they actually have information literacy standards.Taiwan boi (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have some scholarly sources on Ebionism if you want to use them.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I see a few I have which aren't on your list yet. I'll see what I can do to get them to you. Would email be easier?--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have some scholarly sources on Ebionism if you want to use them.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, they don't. I am not a Calvinist. I do not agree with his position. I do not agree with his POV. I do believe that many people still do and that is more to the point than "modern scholarship". In strange way, he is a reliable source since so many rely on his position and writings and so few read the marginalia or footnotes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps in a way he is reliable, as you have pointed out. However, if so, he would really be reliable for their interpretation only. You have yet to establish that "so many" do rely on his position. Yes, maybe, 100 years ago, when the Hastings encyclopedia was written, that may have been true. But all articles are intended to rely first and foremost the current academic position on the matter. So, in matters of the definition of the term, whatever the opinions of individuals who do agree with a given position, we are supposed to reflect the highest quality academic research first and foremost, and treat other opinions as that. So the sources most accepted by the academic community, which in this case probably means the linguistic academic community, are the ones that should be given the greatest weight as per WP:WEIGHT. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- The irony John, is that the quote which Walter claimed was from Calvin, the quote which he argued dogmatically was authoritative, relevant, and a WP:R, wasn't even from Calvin. On the contrary, Calvin said the exact opposite of the quote, which was actually from a footnote in a modern edition of Calvin's work. Once I pointed this out, Walter immediately ceased his support for Calvin, and an edit was made arguing that Calvin was wrong. This is a clear indication of POV editing; a source is only considered authoritative by Walter until such a time as it is pointed out that it doesn't support his argument. Thank you for reminding Walter of WP:WEIGHT. Please see this diff and tell me which edit makes proper use of WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT.
- My edit:
- Differentiated between standard scholarly reference sources and non-scholarly sources
- Identified POV sources as such ("Immersion, Proved to Be Not a Scriptural Mode of Baptism But a Romish Invention")
- Included all the sources Esoglou had added to the article
- Included all sources in a Wiki-oriented for/against presentation
- Re-ordered the article in a logical way
- Represented sources accurately
- Esolglou's edit:
- Fails to differentiate between standard scholarly reference sources and non-scholarly sources
- Treats non-scholarly sources as equivalent in authority to standard scholarly reference sources
- Removed a large number of scholarly reference sources which do not support his POV
- Removed almost all sources which oppose his POV
- Reverted my ordering of the article
- Fails to represent all sources accurately
- I would appreciate your comments.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Rlevse
When Rlevse "retired" more than two years ago after a bad decision, I sent him a private email asking him to reconsider. But this is different. While putting an article through the FA process, he added unambiguous and relatively expansive copyvios (in one edit 8 consecutive minimally reworded sentences out of an original 9 consecutive sentences in a news report) to the article. This problem was discovered today while the article was on the main page, after similar problems with other editors' DYK contributions had been discussed for a while, a discussion with which Rlevse was clearly extremely unhappy.
Retiring and officially stepping back from their position (I expect that we will hear about that step soon) is the best thing an Arb can do in that situation to protect the institution itself from further damage. Maybe you should consider self-reverting your edit to Rlevse's talk page, as it could lead to an unnecessary side conflict and is only likely to fuel the scandal. Hans Adler 16:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, you weren't the only one who sent e-mails two years ago. But I hadn't known about the copyvio questions. In a few, extreme, cases, even that might not be really horrible, if the language used is the among the best possible language for the material and if it is done in such a way as one might think a few quotation marks and maybe a single citation were simply overlooked, which I think could happen to the best of us once in a while. Maybe, I don't know the particulars in this case. But at this point I don't think my removing my first comments would do any good - we can hope that it doesn't escalate. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it's not such a minor thing. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page#Which is witch? for my analysis of an 8-sentence edit by Rlevse that was entirely plagiarised. This was probably the worst. Others, especially Uncle G and Moonriddengirl, have found various shorter instances of copying, sometimes loosely, sometimes literally with no changes. I could not find similar problems in Rlevse's two previous FAs, by the way, but the main source for one of them is not online. Hans Adler 16:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 October newsletter
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Trophy.png)
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to
TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to
Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists –
White Shadows (submissions),
William S. Saturn (submissions),
Staxringold (submissions) and
ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to
Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.
Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is
Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is
Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is
TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is
Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.
The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
MfD
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject North Korea (2nd nomination) Hello, this is to invite you to a previously held discussion on MfD that had been closed but was recently revealed to be a vote fraud following the discovery of a big sockfarm operated by that particular individual. Appreciate if you could voice your opinion on this matter there. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
page move
Hindu-Buddhist prayer beads has been moved to Buddhist prayer beads by Tktru. The page wasn't actually moved but the old article was pasted to the new location and then redirected. That obfuscates the edit history. Is there a way to do a proper page move to Buddhist prayer beads without losing edit history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpsome (talk • contribs) 00:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Bibliographies
Do you have any ideas for which (or some) of the subjects (that) need bibliographies? Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC).