User talk:John Carter/Archive 1

Thanks
It has been pointed out to me that you seconded my nomination for "Editor of the Week", that was very kind of you. Thanks, I remain astonished. J3Mrs (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion
The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of evolutionary theory
You might find that most of what you are interested in having an article about is already contained here: Objections to evolution.

jps (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that ArbCom thing was certainly interesting. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Help
If you get a chance, you might help me out with this: Talk:Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa.

My complaint has been mostly about the choice wording of a few ways of describing the Jesus movement, but the page-watchers seem to be obsessed with maintaining particularly un-encyclopedic wording in the article. Or at least, it appears that way to me. It doesn't help that it seems many of them are true-believers.

jps (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

SGI and stuff
I am at this point overwhelmed Bodhisattvas of the Earth, Soka Gakkai, Daisaku Ikeda, they all seem to get out of hand already asked  Ubikwit   for input and help.

House of Sabah
Hi John. You're listed as the founder of the now inactive Kuwait Wikiproject so can you look at this article and perhaps sort out the edit warring or let me know of an editor who has some knowledge in this area? Thanks. --Neil N  talk to me 03:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request closed
This is a courtesy message to inform you that an arbitration clarification request in which you were listed as a party has been closed and archived with a motion being enacted which authorises standard discretionary sanctions for the topic of Landmark Worldwide, broadly construed. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (January 2015)
There is currently a discussion at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding an issue with which you are involved. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Tgeairn at AE
You asked when emails were sent to the functionaries list at the ARE discussion. I believe the first email was sent on 2 February 2015. For some reason, this was held up and not distributed to the list. Having received no acknowledgement, I sent and updated follow-up email on 2 March 2015. I understand that the second email was distributed to the list and the first email has also been released. Please note that I have only opened the arbcom, and now the AE case, due to the pushing of POV not based in sources but rather based upon OR and advocacy POV. That includes blanking of referenced material, which is a violation of the injunction/remedy in the arbcom decision mandating that edits be based in sources (i.e., rather than blanking material based upon editor say-so). I am obviously failing to make the point at AE, and since arbcom did not consider content, it seems that there is no dispute resolution process to enforce NPOV, V, NOTADVOCATE and similar policies related to content issues. Although community consensus generally works to protect verifiable content on highly-watched articles, the rest of Wikipedia's lightly-watched articles are open for advocacy claques, COI editors, and others who destructively edit without resorting to obvious vandalism. I have posted additional diffs at AE, but am beyond frustrated at there being no obvious way to address advocacy, and will walk away from further comment there. &bull; Astynax talk 21:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a bit in response to the AE discussion, as it seems that my response to your question was unclear. With that, it is in the hands of those who have both the evidence and the ability to do something regarding the behavior. &bull; Astynax talk 18:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad-faith accusation of forum-shopping
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Importance versus Priority
Hello! I hope I didn't offend you here. I was not concerned about how to assess biograhies, only about the use of Importance versus Priority in doing so, where guideline looks like it's being disregarded by some people almost to an extreme. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Asked a question on my talk. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How could we go about, if at all, trying to stop a user from continuing to use "Importance", rather than as per guideline using "Priority", in assessing a huge amoung of biographies? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've followed your advice at Template talk:WPBannerMeta, and I hope it's OK that I used some of your wording, since I don't really feel I know what I'm doing. Thank you in any case! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is is unreasonable of me to ask the user I've seen ignoring the guideline for years to stop for now, while the Template talk:WPBannerMeta is ongoing? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you please explain here, sir, why you directed me to that talk page? The main input person in that discussion does not seem to understand that and keeps referring me elsewhere. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Invitation
Since you offered to comment on my talk page, you're welcome to chime in on the conversation at regarding a new section with multiple reliable sources.--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Astronomy Project and DRN
If you want to try to moderate the Astronomy issue, you are welcome to do so, but I don't see an issue that can be addressed by moderated discussion. There are complaints about an editor's use of a tool. The privilege of using a tool isn't within the scope of DRN (as you know). There are also questions about capitalization, and I agree with you that discussion should probably be at the MOS talk page, possibly with an RFC. Good luck, but it looks like a case heading for general closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a new WikiProject you may be interested in
This is a form letter sent out to members of WikiProject Lead section cleanup.

I am contacting you because you are listed as a participant of the now defunct WikiProject Lead section cleanup. I have created a new WikiProject, WikiProject Lede Improvement Team (name subject to change), that likely has the same goals as the project that you signed up for was supposed to have. If improving the lede sections of articles is something you are still interested in, please stop by and add yourself as a participant. As well, if you have any thoughts regarding your previous experience with lede section cleanup, please stop by and share them. Thank you, &#160; Discant X  08:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Remarkable deletions on Soka Gakkai talk page
Could you have a look at the conversation mentioned? Puzzles me a bit. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Any particular indicators exactly whose comments or which comments? There seem to have been quite a few lately. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The ones about the Ogasawara incident. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing WER Consultation
I wonder if I might cut you recent comment to the thread How many women have been involved in these discussions? and start a new thread titled 'Special characteristics. There are so many lively threads, which is great, but I'm sure you know that keeping editors on thread topic is like herding cats. Thanks for all you involvement at WER. Sidebar: In case you ever want some "consulting" or insight on one individuals experiences (Me) I just wanted to say that I have taken the Est course (70's), Lifespring (80's) and Landmark (2000+). I watched a little bit of the recent case to combine the articles but I stayed on the sidelines. Also, in the 60's, I was the Building Engineer for a multi-use building in Evanston that had as one of its major tenantsThe Church of Scientology. I don't know why I needed to say all that but I just wanted you to know. I never once felt there was the least bit of similarity between Scientology and the other three...even in recruiting techniques. Buster Seven   Talk  21:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A new section sounds good. Regarding Scientology/Landmark and the others, believe me when I say anyone who knows anything about the topic would be welcome. The idea isn't really so much to merge est/Landmark/etc. but to create a central article, if there is cause for one, which there seems to be. Maybe. Maybe est should be a separate article - honestly, I still don't know. I doubt that there is much real "similarity" between them, other than the fact that they are profit oriented and in the same basic area - actually, if they were similar, one would probably have beat out the other in competition. I think I said to Liz I could even see Scientology become really revived and maybe even theologically interesting if it had a "gospel writer" to update Hubbard, but I don't think that likely to happen. Personally, I've kind of been waiting for NYB to return, which he said he'll do tomorrow, because I think he might be the best "drafter" for anyway RfC proposals which might be put forward. And, maybe, for helping figure out how to format the discussion. None of those I requested involve themselves, other than I think Keithbob, Liz and Maunus, have shown any interest in taking part, but the Macedonia arb was resolved with only three uninvolved parties, so even a small number will do. Maybe check the Landmark talk page for the next few days and see if anything actually happens. At heart, I would like to see the issue resolved, one way or another, and maybe the content improved to a level where most people will leave it alone and spend time more productively elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * as the first wound up being a typo. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just now invited Editor LightBreather to invite the 80 or so editors from the members list that seem to her as though they may be women. I realize I do it with a little tongue in cheek trying to make the point that we can't really know the gender of an editor. Its really too bad that the discussion and the focus is now on this tangent but ......Buster Seven   Talk  08:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * After todays events and the potential for future upsetting eventsI have stepped aside from any talk facilitating or involvement for at least a month. Rumor has it that you may soon be talking a months sabbatical. I'll facilitate the Eddy Award stuff but that's all. I look forward to working with you again in March.Buster Seven   Talk  23:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Religions of the Hebrew Bible (Spring 2015) -- starting soon
John, Just wanted to let my course starts tomorrow. We meet M and Ws. I'm not asking students to do anything with Wikipedia until after the first two class sessions, but some may want to begin sooner.

Thank you again for your willingness to serve as an online ambassador for the course! Education Program:Miami University/Religions of the Hebrew Bible (Spring 2015)

Take care, ProfGray (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your support at ANI. I'm at my wits end trying to make edits to New Jersey. I have no idea how this has been allowed to go on for so long. I'm about to move on to some other state. He's just made it so unhappy there. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

ARCA
, while I acknowledge your statement at ARCA is obviously true, that doesn't address the question raised. Nor does the recent apparent retirement of someone who retired an earlier name already, only to come back under a new name, indicate that even that retirement is necessarily likely to be of any long term. Your current comment could be seen as indicating that the request should not go forward, and I hope that perhaps you modify your comment to indicate that the request does not become invalid, either in this particular case or in general. I honestly don't know if the situation has been raised before, but I have difficulty imagining it might not be raised again. John Carter (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And my apologies for misusing my privilege of editing this talk page during the current proceedings. However, I do think that the thank you to and request for clarification were justified, and thought it perhaps worth running the risk of violation of talk page editing privileges anyway. My word, which I think is of some value, is hereby given that I have no intentions of doing so any further. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As a WER coordinator
I wonder if you could add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations to your watchlist. I don't expect you to second nominations (that is what the page is for, although that would nice). Rarely there is a discussion regarding policy. There is one now. Your input would be helpful. Buster Seven   Talk  21:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Adjusting pilot start date - WP:Co-op
Hello  John Carter ,

I'll be putting out a formal update sometime soon, but I wanted to inform you that I've decided to push our start date back to mid-February rather than in January. There are number of reasons for this, but the biggest factor is that we are now facing the hard work of implementing our designs on the Mediawiki interface. It's a limiting environment to work with from a web-building perspective, and the team that worked on the Teahouse can offer similar testimonials to these challenges. We also want to make sure there is time for us and for you to test the environment out, ask questions at our project's talk page, and give us a little time to make any last changes before we start inviting editors to the space. If some of you know you will be unavailable during this time, it's totally fine if you need to bow out for the pilot. But we do need all the mentors we can get, so even if you can take the time to mentor just one or two editors, that would be fantastic. Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through   MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request closed
Hi John, just letting you know that I've archived an arbitration clarification request which you filed. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

WP: RETENTION
We haven't forgotten you. We await your return. GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * When that happens, I hope to have at least a few more works done or at least close to done over at Wikisource for use by editors here. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * About a week to go. We're waiting for ya. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, by that time, I might have some of the articles from some of James Hastings' old books, and some other sources, available as well. John Carter (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While you're on this forced vacation can you take a look at User talk:Buster Spade and tell me what you think. It's like a pre-nomination stage where the idea is to engage wiki-friends and get them involved in the process and share their experiences to make the nom more specific. When it (contact with a cohort) has happened in the past the result is awesome. You too, GD. Your input is always welcome. . Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  16:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

WELCOME BACK. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey GoodDay. Go to User talk:Buster Spade and share your thoughts. Thanks, . <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  22:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 1
Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...

'''Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.'''

We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:
 * "Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Wikipedia and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
 * "I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
 * "In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik

Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.

We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)

While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!

– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote
Hi John Carter. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (92nd), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Co-op news for December 2014 – Feburary 2015
Hey, it's been a while. The Co-op team has been hard at work during over the winter, so let's get right into what's been happening: Thanks to all of the new mentors who have joined over the past few months. Big thanks to to posting about our little project here to the gendergap-l mailing list. <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 00:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC) on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.
 * Graphic design work is nearing completion and development work is coming along slowly but surely. The main components of the space, profiles, the landing page, and the mentor landing page have all been built, and we're basically just putting the pieces together.  We have close-to-final draft of the landing page, which is currently at User:Slalani/Landing_page, and in the thumbnail to the right.  You can check out other components over at User:Slalani if you're curious., , and I are working together on some of the front page elements.  We've also been doing some testing on test.wikipedia.org for profile building and matching.  If you're curious about checking that out, let me know.
 * We've finished up a survey for newer editors to assess their experiences of using existing help spaces (e.g. Reference Desk, Teahouse, IRC, The Wikipedia Adventure) on en.wikipedia.  is putting together a summary of that survey, and in the meantime, some findings from that survey of 45 newer editors include:
 * On average, editors found contributing to Wikipedia to be easier after using the help space compared to before.
 * However, after using one or more help spaces, only half of editors reported that editing, addressing social challenges, and resolving technical issues were easy or very easy. The other half of editors were either neutral, or reported that these matters were difficult or very difficult.
 * Just under 30% (11 of 38 editors) of newer editors said they probably would have stopped editing entirely had they not received support from the help space they used.
 * Editors frequently reported either 1) that they would not have been learn what they needed without the help space, or 2) That they could have found it, but admitted that it would have been difficult or taken much longer.
 * We will be making one final move of the pilot start date to March 4th, 2015. This is the last move (I promise), because we can't afford to run the pilot any later than that.  So there it is:  March 4th or bust!  But we won't bust, because there are just a few things left on our plate before we can run our pilot successfully.  I'll be alerting you about when you will be able to make mentor profiles soon, so when you get a message about that, please take a minute or two to create your profile here (otherwise, you won't get matched to any editors!).

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

E-mail
You've got mail. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

An Sock puppet investigation concerning Cultural Marxism Deletion
[] This investigation has been started to investigate RGloucester and suspected sock or meat puppet Jobrot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.15.36 (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

See Jimbo's Page and ANI
See Jimbo's page and ANI  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.32.8 (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Co-op: Presentation at Wikimania 2015
Hey. I've put in a submission for a presentation at Wikimania 2015 called Is Two the Magic Number?: The Co-op and New Editor Engagement through Mentorship. I'll be talking about the state of finding help spaces on en.wiki and how our new mentorship space, The Co-op, factors into that picture. Reviewing will begin soon and I'll need your help to be able to present our work. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. If you would be interested in seeing this presentation, whether you are attending or not, please add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal (you do not need to attend Wikimania to express interest in presentations). <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI
Thanks John for trying to help out on the latetst ANI. Since I got insulted by that person it has gone a bit too far. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Co-op: Mentor profiles and final pilot prep
Hey mentors, two announcements:
 * 1) You can now make your profile at The Co-op!  Please set up your mentor profile here as soon as you are able, as the pilot begins on March 4th.  It isn't very involved and should only take a minute.  If you need more info about what the different skills mean (e.g. writing, communication), please refer to these descriptions.
 * 2) Profile creation, invitations, and automated matching of editors, profile creation, that will be coordinated through and a few gadgets may not be ready for our pilot, and will have to be done manually until they are ready.  In preparation for the pilot, please read over these instructions on how we will be manually performing these tasks until the automated components are ready. <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC
What do you think? Should I do an RfC for this 'ass kissing' question? I say that because just our replies may not be enough. Should be discussed and out in the open and hope this posting is not removed and detracts from the project and  I would appreciate honest feedback, etc. all point to a dissatisfied customer. I think he is alone, but you never know. I've never done an RfC. Whats the process? . <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  22:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In general, the RfC process just involves adding the template to a relevant talk page and asking a question. The RfC system automatically lists them, as per WP:RFC. In this case, maybe adding the to WT:EOTW, and adding to the template a neutral form of the question asked, would at least get the RfC started. It might also be possible to add a link to a subpage to the talk page for any sort of criticism of the award, preferably indicating a "noping" template is to be used to link to the name of the editor whose nomination is called into question. And, I suppose, if one thinks that there might be future serious questions regarding the process. to allow for discussion there. But the easiest and probably at least sufficient way to go right now might be to just add the rfc template to the EOTW talk page, with maybe a question something along the lines of "Do any editors have any significant questions regarding the way in which the EotW nominations and awards have been conducted in the past, or, alternately, any ideas which they think might improve the process in some way?" as the statement of the issue in question. John Carter (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks John. I'll add the template on Thursday unless the discussion picks up wind in which case I'll wait. . <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  01:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

fyi
Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thread can be closed now
I'm done on ANI for the moment. My thread was poorly formatted and turned into a fustercluck immediately. It doesn't make a difference for article content because consensus was established months ago and will not change.

But seriously, why did you think the dispute was under discussion on DRN? Seriously, I'm not going to assume bad faith, but could you please acknowledge that you were wrong? I don't know any of the users involved in that dispute other than Catflap and Ubikwit, but if any of them are new accounts or SPAs ... were you accusing me of sockpuppetry?

I really want to know the answer.

(Note: If you just respond to this by again claiming that I was wrong and you were right, I might need to take this to mediation. I don't like people thinking I'm engaged in sockpuppetry and/or forum-shopping when I'm not.)

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to move Methodism work group to child project
You are listed as an active member of the Methodism work group, as such I'd like to bring my proposal to your attention WikiProject Council/Proposals/Methodism. Jerodlycett (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Giano's socks
Giano has never engaged in sock puppetry. Could you fix that accusation because it's baseless. I also recommend not mentioning Kumioko or anybody else, because it's not cricket to talk about people when they aren't invited to the conversation, and if you start inviting a bunch of sock masters, you'll end up with a rowdy bunch! Thank you! Jehochman Talk 19:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Your talkpage banner
See User:Gandydancer and User:Intothatdarkness. . <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  03:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous and unsubstantiated attempt to discredit me by what is obviously an incompetent sockpuppet
John, thank you for bringing the anticult message to the landmark page. They are trying to sell their message for a long time and we need to stop people from being confused by it. The email said I needed an account, and I created an account so I can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoltAsResearch (talk • contribs) 02:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I find the above comment, from someone who has explicitly claimed to be a long-time user and still apparently has no clue that new topics are supposed to be started in a separate section, frankly, absurd in the extreme. I also am rather disgustedly amused at the stupid arrogance of anyone who has the ridiculous incompetence to refer to what he alleges are apparently personal e-mails sent to him, presumably by me. No long-time user would so stupid. So, yes, while it is transparently obvious that you are a sockpuppet of somebody else employed for the patent ridiculous purpose of somehow trying to discredit me by such ridiculous and incompetent accusations, I have to wonder which of the involved parties in this matter you are a sockpuppet of. John Carter (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And the incompetent attempts to discredit me by what I am becoming increasingly convinced by Tgeairn under one of the most ridiculous attempts at impugning my character imaginable continue with his attempt to change the section heading here. John Carter (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox person
Hi. I've requested coding in my preferences to suppress Template:Infobox person in an article and to replace a photo if in the infobox with a formatted photo in place set at 250px with the caption given in the infobox. I asked for the coding at the village pump and from MzMcBride but nobody seems willing to respond. I asked five days ago now. I've stated that I won't continue editing here until somebody kindly shows me how to suppress them in my preferences. Infobox disputes in biographies have really been wearing me down of late and I really don't want to continue here until it is sorted out for me. Can you try to contact somebody to help? Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First, I guess I would need to know exactly which page of the Village Pump to which you are referring. Also, unfortunately, what you seem to be asking for at least to my eyes, as someone who knows virtually nothing about such substitution mechanics, this sounds like something that involved more than a bit of coding I have trouble understanding myself. The people who would seem to have the most capacity to do something like that would probably be at WP:BAG I think, because that group tends to contain the people who would know most about it. I wish I knew more about that area of the project, but that's the best I can think of. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've had a reply now, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Weird ping
Just got pinged for [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Carter/Archive_1&oldid=prev&diff=650345147]; I don't recall being pinged at the time of the original post. Anyway, I've long since forgotten what that was about and assume it's moot at this point. Just wanted to let you know I wasn't blowing you off back then, just didn't see the ping. NE Ent 21:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, I have no idea how that happened. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Remember the SIgnpost interview, idiot
Just a not-so-friendly reminder here. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

CUP OF TEA
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
 * style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg
 * style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I'm sorry we've found ourselves on opposite sides of the issues, sometimes strongly so. I hope to continue our work with mutual respect in 2015. In any event I have asked for some clarification at NPOV noticeboard re the date of Matthew's Gospel. I am glad you have come out of retirement to join in the debate. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Thank you for your thoughtful contributions today. I didn't get quite the response I wanted, but the diplomacy, thoughtfulness, and effort of all involved was certainly appreciated! Formerly 98 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor retention
I just left a note at. Actually, it is right under your comment. After I saved it, I saw the template at the top that said the page was under construction and not ready to be used. Thus, I don't know if anyone is monitoring that section yet. Is there anything you can do to persuade Yngvadottir to return?

Also, after a lot of work over a period of months, a lengthy peer review of the article Cucurbita and promotion to FA status, a discussion has arisen regarding one section of the article at Talk:Cucurbita which is still ongoing. However, because of the abrupt way it was begun, with material deleted by an editor (who had not, I believe, participated in the work to get the article to FA status) with no attempt to discuss first, two of the editors who had worked so hard on the article have become so upset that both removed the article from their watchlists and one, Sminthopsis84, a professional botanist, has decided to withdraw from editing on WP. S/He blanked his/her talk page. See, and posted a "Retired" banner on his/her user page. It would be a great shame to lose both Yngvadottir and Sminthopsis84. Is there anything you can do? CorinneSD (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am less sure than I would like to be the one to try. In general, I have in the past sent the person an e-mail of encouragement and maybe offering whatever input I can. One thing in particular I have mentioned recently to some leaving the project is that wikisource, and all the readily available PD reference sources which it could contain, along with commons, can be one of the best ways available to provide long-term ease of access and availability for a lot of article content in a lot of articles, making it harder to argue against. So, for instance, if Encyclopedia Britannica says a given king was born then, and the article on that king in Britannica is a separate, easily available page, arguments about that tend to get quieted down fast. I've been doing some work there lately myself, and am more than willing to offer what help I can in my own limited experience there with templates and such. Sometimes that works, particularly if the issue involved seems to maybe be somewhat abrupt and maybe a little emotional.
 * Unfortunately, Yngvadottir doesn't have e-mail enabled anymore, if she ever did, and I don't know it from prior history or know anyone else who I think would be likely to know it. Sminthopsis84 (God, I hope I spelled that right), does have e-mail enabled, which might make it possible to do something. Although, honestly, I'm not sure that I would necessarily be the best person to try it, having never, at least to my knowledge, had any contact and his/her specialty being one which I don't know much about. I know that there are reference works out there which relate to alternative medicine, broadly construed, and other journals which discuss the topic, sufficient enough I think to proof that at least some content should be included in WP:SS, and maybe if required the rest spunout to a related article if there really are a lot of WEIGHT issues, which I am myself completely incompetent to judge in this case, knowing little if anything about alternative medicine or botany. If you had earlier contact with him/her, an e-mail from you might work better. I can and will check what sources I can find, and what they say, and take part in any discussion there, and, possibly, try to help bring in a few more people who might be helpful or help to pursue dispute resolution. That might take a few days to find the sources however. But with my own total lack of prior history of knowledge on these matters, I am probably not the best person to be acting directly in this instance. You might be better able to communicate effectively with Sminth than me in that regard. I can say for myself, proofreading over at wikisource is a hell of a lot quieter, has much less argumentation, and has a freaking huge number of very good reference sources which haven't gotten attention yet. Sometimes a change is as good as a break, and adding good material there in a much less contentious environment may prove to be about as useful as developing the articles here. And, in many cases, I should be able to help set up the "index" pages there and do some of the proofreading to bring the material there up to the "finished" level. If Sminth wanted any assistance there, leaving me a message on my user talk page would hopefully get it shortly.
 * Unfortunately, not knowing either editor personally, I don't think that I would be particularly effective here. You might well be more effective than me with Sminth, and I guess we can only both hope that someone who has maybe been in contact with Yngvadottir and knows her e-mail might try to help her realize that, despite what most of us think right now, some of the other entities, like wikisource, can in some cases be used more quickly and with a lot less argument to make good reliable material available to people who need it.
 * If anything else does occur to me, I'll make sure to let you know. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your informative and generous reply. I do correspond with Sminth by e-mail and will attempt to persuade him/her to return. Wikisource sounds interesting. Maybe Sminth would be interested in that. Regarding Yngvadottir, I don't know if it is worth taking the time to look at recent exchanges on her talk page, which she has deleted, to see what led up to this. I will try to find someone who knows her e-mail address. CorinneSD (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * John. I like what you said to Yhgva...especially that you gave her a different specific option to look at should she return. The tactic of providing the possibility that things would be different should the departing editor return, because they would be in a completely different realm within Wikiworld, has potential. Many times we say, 'Just do something different." But we don't give a specific arena. And I say "arena" on purpose because while we say "WP is not a battlefield' those of us that have been here awhile know the truth. Its just that some battlefields don't wind up with quality editors calling it Quits. . <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  16:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure this isn't the first time someone has said....
You look just like Dr. House (Hugh Laurie). <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  04:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow he really does. <b style="color:red">Chillum</b> 04:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Uh, wait that picture is Hugh Laurie... <b style="color:red">Chillum</b> 04:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Now I'm really confused. SMirC-what.svg <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  04:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a rather pathetic attempt at humor on my part, comparing my occasionally less-than-awesome manners to that of the good doctor. Actually, I haven't looked at my user page for some months or years now. It probably does need updating, and I'll try to get to that this week. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But John, it worked. In fact, it worked so well, I decided to upload a my photograph to my user page.  Guess which one is me....SMirC-wink.svg <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  22:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that is a much more appealing image than mine. By a mile or so, actually. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Even though I did not invite you to do so you followed my activities. Thanks for your support anyway but I will retire from now on. It is just useless. Wikipedia due to my own experiences in no longer a reliable source of information. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Spot on at Landmark...
I think you are spot on at the Landmark stuff that there is something up. Thanks for the clarifying points you made. I think we can tell by the lengthy defensive response you received in return that there is some evident POV pushing going on. Thanks for the good eye :) Prasangika37 (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Re:
For the record, now that Catflap08 is retired, I am probably going to be able to tone down my "gross" language, since I no longer have to put up with him pushing his own fringe POV on the Kenji article over and over and over and over and over again. It was extremely annoying, and caused me to lose my cool very briefly. I'm done now. And I have no intention of seeking further sanctions against you for defending his abuses, unless you actually try to continue his "good work" of promoting "truth" in this matter. Farewell and happy editing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , For the record, that in no way excuses your conduct to date, particularly considering the regularity with which you have indulged in grossly unacceptable language yourself. The "very briefly" comment is frankly laughable, considering how often you have lost your cool. You also seem to be incompetent to recognize how annoying your own inexcusable conduct has been. In all honesty, at this point, considering how explicitly you seem to both insist on assuming bad faith of others while at the same time showing absolutely no competence to recognize how regularly you have indulged in excusable conduct, I very much regret that I cannot say that should I see further evidence of your continuing your grossly unacceptable conduct I will not seek sanctions on you. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You joined about two weeks ago, some nine months into my dispute with Catflap. He had been behaving very poorly throughout. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As have you during the time I have seen. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @ 聖 It is for folks you that editing in en.wikipedia has become less important.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Catflap08: Please learn to ping correctly. Also -- what? "It is for folks you that editing..."? You mean I am making editing Wikipedia less "important"? What? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a less than stellar off-the-cuff translation problem. "It is for (or because of) folks (like) you that editing en.wikipedia has become less important (to me)."John Carter (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wonder when WP:HOUND starts to kick in.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification
A couple editors voiced opposition to a copy/paste of COI-created copy. I actually pinged, knowing this was his position. Most editors that oppose the copy/paste approach recommend instead that a conflicted editor point out specific problems in the article and provide sources. I was trying to follow through on their preferred method of collaboration.

Truth be told, there are only maybe a dozen good sources on her and a high quality page could be created in just a couple hours. This seems unreasonably hard for a short page on a minor BLP, but I guess I'll just keep dredging along. CorporateM (Talk) 08:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Til
Why are you posting to his talk page? He's indefinitely blocked, although continues to sock through IP ranges. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He still has talk page access, according to the block log anyway, and, given his status as one of the few people I know who is both a member of the EOC and a rather pronounced supporter of it, I thought he might be one of the more motivated individuals around wikipedia in general who might be both interested and maybe able in getting some translations of the solely EOC and Ethiopian Jew books of the Bible translated. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened
Please note that Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect has been opened. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened
Please note that Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect has been opened. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened
Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No longer a party
Hi John Carter, you have been removed from the Collect and others arbitration case by an arbitrator. Accordingly, your evidence size limit is now 500 words and 50 diffs, and you will no longer receive notifications about this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 13:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:LAME
Do you mean that it is a major candidate for lame wars? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * More like it is the leading candidate for lameness of edit wars, will refactor. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Grubb
Have you noticed that Bruce has basically left WP. Seems a shame that so many noticeboard inquiries have occured to the point that an editor decides to leave. I've worked with him, and he didn't seem so bad; and I never saw anything that impressed me as ill intentioned. I can tell you that I've read through some of these noticeboard discussions, and some of those against him seem more belligerent than Bruce. The whole pseudoscience area (especially BLP articles) seems very cliquish, and groups of people tend to gang up on those that don't conform to the group norm. That's my general observation. I see lots of wikilawyering about policy, and subsequent manipulation of content to suit ideologies. Not saying Bruce is any angel, but some of those people can be quite fanatical in drumming people out. I suppose ultimately it's his choice, but no doubt some of the negative atmosphere help promote it. Regards, -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 14:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Rudolph Sohm
Hi, I have made start at creating Rudolph Sohm, but do not have the time to go through the DYK process. If any one else wants to nominate it they are free to do so. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Matthew
I will take a look shortly. Of course, the Gospel of Matthew itself contains a lot of good advice, such as the Beatitudes, that would avoid the need for ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @ John: The threats of being banned, the many many personal attacks, the false accusations etc etc. are not appropriate. Furthermore, being followed around and harassed has made it impossible for me to edit. Therefore I am stepping back from Wikipedia and will take an extended break until I figure out what to do next. Still hoping to eventually work things out.  Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Re:
John Carter, can I ask why you are taking such an interest in the Miyazawa Kenji and Ikeda Daisaku articles? They are clearly well outside your main area of expertise, but you have been posting in these areas more than almost anyone else for the past few weeks. You have accused me of wiki-stalking Catflap08 and "following" him to the Daisaku Ikeda article, even though I have been editing in that area longer than either you or Catflap, and you very clearly followed me to the Miyazawa Kenji article yourself. Now that Catflap08 has failed to get what he wanted out of his RFC, he has started openly lying about my history with him and has admitted that he is more interested in continuing to fight with me than actually contributing to the encyclopedia. What exactly is your ultimate goal here? I have a pretty good idea of what Catflap's is, but I doubt the community will put up with a third bogus RFC on the same topic, and so it doesn't really matter what he wants since he can't get it. But what do you want out of this? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 16:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First, I really think it would be advisable if, at some time, you realized that your little questions are to be put on user talk pages, not on user pages. I realize you regularly make excuses for yourself regarding mobile edits, and I imagine that this will receive the same sort of rather repetitive excuse. However, I think most people would realize that, if they have to make the same excuse over and over, as you so regularly do regarding this, that, maybe, they should refrain from doing that. So, as the idea seemingly hasn't occurred to you, maybe you should refrain from using the mobile device to edit, and wait until you get to a non-mobile device to edit. It might reduce several of the problems you complain about with rather annoying regularity. Regarding your question, one could just as easily ask the same of you and your recent more or less self-declared interest in some pages exclusively because you think others might be making mistakes, which is rather amusing considiering how consensus in at least several cases indicates that the one whose position is weaker is you. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding mobile edits: I know I talk about my phone a lot, but it's usually when I correct my own odd misprints on talk pages. There have been a few occasions when it appears to have lead to more work for others, but you are the first person to ever complain about it. This means that either (a) you are the first person to be legitimately annoyed by it, or (b) you are not legitimately annoyed by it and you are just looking for yet another dubious pretext to attack me. If (a): why should I radically alter my own editing pattern just to appease one user, who seems not to be especially fond of me to begin with? If (b): kindly drop it now.
 * As for following other users to articles in which I have no interest otherwise: to which articles are you referring? You say in "several" cases I have the weaker argument, but to the best of my recollection I have "followed" the user in question to only one article. I had no small amount of direct pushing to get involved in that page from you, and so far all I have said was that the user in question was adding sources that did not verify the material to which they were attached, something that so far no one has disagreed with.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Section John Carter and Ret.Prof
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thank you
Thank you for your kind words. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarify benefit of uploading?
Hiya, Are you willing to help clarify the benefit of uploading A Great Deception or other texts onto such a page? Sorry-am a bit ignorant on such matters. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello John Carter:


 * Please consider participating in this week's vote for TAFI's upcoming Week 17 collaboration. Last week's voting did not receive many participants. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 15:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case 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 in 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, It appears the filing party did not notify the named parties. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 13:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello John Carter:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 18 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by User:Northamerica1000 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined
Hi John Carter, the Arbitration Committee has declined the WikiBullying arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 15:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Peace offering
Regarding this: Please read my comment more closely. I did not assert anywhere that you should have a public email (I don't). I merely stated that the fact that you don't have a public email means that whoever contacted you did so through the Wikipedia email service, and there if he/she is the same person who has been abusing said service to badmouth me to multiple users over the past two years that could be a problem. I will take your word that it doesn't appear to be the same site-banned user. But there are only about three other users with whom I have had long-term problems who are not indefinitely blocked, one of whom hasn't edited in over a year and the other two of whom haven't interaed with me on-wiki for the same amount of time. So I find it very disturbing that you would defend such stalkerish behaviour, regardless of who it is.

Anyway, if the email stated, like the earlier emails that went out to Toddy1 among others, positively that I am a "troll" who likes to get in fights, it was wrong. I admire Miyazawa Kenji and I hate it when people try to defame him (something that hardly ever happensby outside Wikipedia, mind you). I also hate it when people violate NOR, in general. I still believe that these are recurring and near-constant problems with the user you defended in our most recent string of interactions, and I think said user is a liability to Wikipedia as long as he/she is still active. Pointing out on article talk pages that said user's proposed edits constitute OR or are otherwise problematic, and that this is a recurring problem, is not a "personal attack", as several other users told you on your most recent ANI thread.

But now that those content issues are more-or-less resolved, at least for the time being, I have no further interest in arguing with you. This was true when I apologized for my gruff tone on ANI a month ago and it is still true now. I hope you will accept this peace offering and we can both go about normal editing again. I will continue to talk this issue out with you if you so desire, but I see no reason for any further ANI threads, accusations of personal attacks/stalking or the like, and would be just as happy to receive no further discussion of any of it.

182.249.17.119 (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW I don't like having to post logged-out so I'd also like this to be the last place the email affair is mentioned. 182.249.17.119 (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't like to post logged out, why would you do so? You seem to still be acting on some sort of frankly irrational and dubiously supportable belief that you have to post even when circumstances make it difficult for you to do so. No one's edits are so time-critical that they can't wait until a convenient time. I already told you this, more or less, on your user talk page. I am sorry that you still, apparently, believe your comments to be of such immediate importance that you must make them while logged out. Also, honestly, if you waited a while before posting, you might be less obviously emotional and you might be able to contribute to discussions in a less problematic way than you often do at present. That would probably be for the best. If it meant posting less often or less repeatedly, and I see you have had to post multiple times for this individual comment already, well, honestly, maybe that would be for the best. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * John Carter, could you actually read my comments before responding? I made it clear both here and on SilkTork's talk page that my posting this logged out was not because I'm editing on an unstable mobile device, but to protect myself from my off-wiki stalker. Once the current topic is dealt with I won't need to be logged-out to talk to you about it. And given that Catflap appears to now have fully retired I don't see you and me having further conflict over the articles I usually edit and you stop by occasionally, and in the articles you usually edit in and I stop by I don't recall a single instance where we have disagreed. 182.249.13.126 (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

American Politics 2 arbitration evidence phase closing soon
As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 14 April. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

Evidence closed
The evidence phase is now closed on the American Politics 2 arbitration case, which you are a named party to. You are welcome to add proposals at the workshop. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind removing my accidental comment from your user page?
Hey John Carter, how are things?

I would appreciate your removing my comment from your user page, as it was meant for your talk page. I was not the first nor the last to make this error: your user page simply looks a lot like a talk page. The only other post you have apparently chosen to keep is this one, and the original poster didn't try to undo that one as I did.

I don't know why you chose to revert me when I tried to remove it myself when you hadn't reverted the others, but I find it disturbing given our less-than-pleasant interaction in the recent past that you choose to keep a reference to me on your user page. It looks like it is what WP:UPNO calls Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. Specifically it looks like you are trying to keep a record of my making a "stupid mistake" that numerous other editors, including the venerable User:In ictu oculi, have made. You criticized me quite harshly when I first made the mistake, so I can't imagine any other reason you would want to keep a record of said mistake on your user page except to attack me.

I'm sure neither of us want this to elevate again, so I would ask you to kindly remove it yourself at the nearest opportunity.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , please refrain from any further comments on my pages. What I mind is your rather tendentious insistence on trying to cast yourself as making no mistakes. And your repeatedly commenting on it very much looks like WP:TE. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment
, allow me to say very very happily that I am not able to read your mind. I am virtually certain I would find it something I could not easily enjoy. However as per your recent obnoxious edit summary on your talk page here, I think it is also worth noting that you have at no point so far as I have ever seen specifically requested that I do not edit your pages. You have removed comments in a rather insulting derogatory and offensive manner, but, honestly, those characteristics seem to be more or less your standard of behavior, and it is not reasonable for you to have assumed that behavior consistent with your other at best dubious behavior would mean anything special. You have no, finally, so far as I can tell for the first time, requested that I remain off your page. I have every intention to do so. I only include this here, in the short term, probably no more than half an hour, as an indicator of my willing to agree to this request, which you have made now for the first time. I shall archive it rather quickly, and it will be preserved in the archives. It may be useful to point out in the future that your "for the last time" is, in fact, also the first time you have clearly stated, admittedly in your standard overbearing and obnoxious way, that I stay off that page. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Waiting for response
Your attention is required at User_talk:Gabby_Merger.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

edits and forms and response
hi... John, if you had actually read what I wrote (though you complain about "repetition") you would have seen the fact and point that the form "Jehovah" is used plenty OUTSIDE of "Jehovah's witnesses". Long-established. That's proven and documented. Not sure what part of that is so hard to understand or believe. The Anglicized form "Jehovah" is used TONS in various contexts, by various types "scholars". I "repeat" myself, because A) Jeffro did too, over and over again, and B) now you're saying more or less the same less-than-accurate stuff he did, in a way. Again, the term "Jehovah" is widely-used enough (past and present), by various scholars, both "secular" and "religious", both "Atheist" and "Theist" (and those in between), in a wide array of contexts, to warrant at least some general usage for the "DEITY", in at least some WP articles, arguably. It's not some obscure thing belonging to just one sect or denomination. Not even close. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You posted the same response at your own User Talk page. It's not needed in both locations.
 * Please direct all responses to Gabby Merger's User Talk page. (John, feel free to delete my response along with Gabby's repeated section here.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

response
hi John. Please see my response to you on my talk page. Thanks. Click here. Gabby Merger (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

final response
I'm just writing on here in CASE you don't see my response to you on my page, as I have no certainty that you will. John, you don't absorb anything, are rude, assume things, misunderstand things, and are evasive to the specific points and whine about "repetition", which you warrant by the things you yourself said, and yes the discussion is over, given the fact that you don't listen, and have flawed arguments and flawed comparisons, and mis-represent (or misunderstand) what I've said and say. YOU are the one who said what you said about "Jehovah's witnesses" AS IF it was just a JW type form of the term. YOU are the one who brought "Theotokos" and "Eastern Rite Catholics" or whatever, which is not a good comparison, for the clear reasons I gave and have proven. And your unwillingness to take correction or facts on this matter, (which are not just mere assertions on my part but checkable facts), shows you can't be reasoned with. Which of course is no surprise. And then somehow thinking that this form "adds complexity to content" when that's just your opinion, and I explained why it shouldn't have to it doesn't necessarily. And your silly condescending nonsense assertions that I'm 'new' or something, discounting all my valid facts and arguments, with silly lame-atudes like that. You're irrelevant. Plus your rudeness and uptightness now about my merely writing a QUICK "hi I responded back" message on your page is not cool either. So yeah, your vapidness on this shows the discussion is going nowhere. I tried to be at least semi-civil with you, unlike you. So that's it. Don't write on MY page either. And I'll do the same for you. Ciao. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Grace Tsutada
Just a quick heads up that I've toted the piece on Grace Tsutada to Articles for Deletion. Articles_for_deletion/Grace_Tsutada. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

AN
Thanks, John, nice point. :-) But I think your "it would be extremely irrational for you to continue to assert that editors like Bishonen… have looked at the evidence" should probably be "it would be extremely irrational for you to continue to deny" etc? Bishonen &#124; talk 01:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC).

Your advice
Hi there. I responded to your good advice on my talk page, then went about my editing and came across this. How is this harassment or stalking? His last edit was two months ago! He reverted an edit where I removed the geo-coordinates from the geography section of the article. This is stated in WP:USCITIES: "if a coordinate (latitude and longitude) is included in the infobox, if there is any, remove any existing article coordinate from this section." He simply will not let me edit in New Jersey, even when my edit has nothing to do with him and is 100 percent correct. Any help would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That edit would clearly violate the i-ban, and is probably problematic in and of itself, were it made after the i-ban were enacted. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have happened yet. But I've seen a few editors engage in dubious conduct days or minutes before an I-ban is enacted. If the i-ban were in place at this point, you would have grounds to take him to an admin and request a block. That i-ban should be in place shortly. Let's wait to see what happens after it is formalized. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)