User talk:John Carter/Archive 2

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2
For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...


 * Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
 * WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes II
Hope you don't mind, but I decided to be WP:BOLD and added Infoboxes II to WP:LAME. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
North America1000 16:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC) -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Montanabw (talk) 01:22, 6 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 19 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by User:Northamerica1000 on 12:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC) using Mass message sender.

Rockefeller Foundation article.
One thing I have been criticized for is taking down a claim on the Rockefeller Foundation article that RF helped fund Joseph Mengele's work. I find that difficult to believe, and the original source was Edwin Block, author of IBM and the Holocaust. They changed it to a better source, I believe. But I still question the claim. The Rockefeller Foundation is one group many anti-Masonic conspiracy theorists like David Icke have obsessed over, so there's a lot of false information circulating about it. I think the claim should at least be discussed, whether it should be kept in the article. Also, I believe the Rockefeller Foundation is left-wing politically, just like the family is for the most part, and Nazism is traditionally considered to be on the right-wing side of the political spectrum. Glenn Beck has claimed the Rockefeller Foundation has communist art in it, and they did actually hire a Bolshevik named Diego Rivera to paint it, so he may be right. That would seem to be the opposite of Nazism to me. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "The Rockefeller Foundation funded Nazi racial studies even after it was clear that this research was being used to rationalize the demonizing of Jews and other groups. Up until 1939 the Rockefeller Foundation was funding research used to support Nazi racial science studies at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics (KWIA.) Reports submitted to Rockefeller did not hide what these studies were being used to justify, but Rockefeller continued the funding and refrained from criticizing this research so closely derived from Nazi ideology. The Rockefeller Foundation did not alert "the world to the nature of German science and the racist folly" that German anthropology promulgated and Rockefeller funded for years after the passage of the 1935 Nuremberg racial laws. " That was one statement I took out but I reluctantly restored. I think that should be questioned. Here's another one, "Some of its infamous activities include:
 * Funding various German eugenics programs, including the laboratory of Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, for whom Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.
 * Construction of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute's Institute for Brain Research with a $317,000 grant in 1929, with continuing support for the Institute's operations under Ernst Rüdin over the next several years. " Rockefeller Foundation--PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Mediation rejected as VictoriaGrayson and Montanabw have no interest in joining in
Any advice? Looks like mediation is simply rejected. Alas.. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

proposed iban, please comment
given your involvement, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Suggested_Limited_Interaction_Ban_between_Users_Alansohn_and_Magnolia677. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 3
Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:
 * A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
 * An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) 00:57, 19 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 20 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by User:Northamerica1000 using mass messaging

Your advice again
Hi John. Yesterday I made a few edits to New Jersey. I added a new article, Vanlieu Corners, New Jersey, and added some history to a few articles. I also did some cleanup. As you know, the IBan I agreed to prohibits me from editing an article without an intervening third party edit, so I was cautious not to violate that. The other party spent the day editing hundreds of New Jersey articles in alpha order, leaving his name as the last editor. When a few of my edits interfered, a rant was left on his talk page accusing me of "malicious stalking", "misbehavior", "deliberate DICKishness", being a "jerk", and "deliberately manufacturing conflicts". One of the conditions of the IBan is that "neither party shall mention the other, directly or indirectly, explicitly or by implication, on any page, except once as necessary and with supporting diffs on the WP:ANI board for reporting violations of the IBAN". I don't want to go yet again to ANI, but this is my reputation. Is there anything I can do to stop this abuse? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phrase
Hello John Carter, the workshop phase on the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, has been extended to 24 April 2015. This is the best opportunity to express your analysis of the evidence presented in this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit
Category:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor(talk) 21:18, 23 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 21 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 00:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Bibliography of encyclopedias: history page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=659354131 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F659354131%7CBibliography of encyclopedias: history%5D%5D Ask for help])

WikiProject Intertranswiki
Hi. In 2009 you joined up for the wikiproject WikiProject Intertranswiki. The project has since ceased activity but is currently being given a kick start due to its importance and the coordination needed to translate content from other wikipedias. If you're still active and are still interested please visit the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intertranswiki and add a ✅ by your name within the next week so the project can do a recount and update. Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phase closed
The workshop phase of the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, is now closed. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case
The arbitration case Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case 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/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 00:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello John Carter:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 22 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 05:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus. Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
 * was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
 * took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
 * worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! , and  16:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Arb clerk
Hi John. At a recent case request where you commented, I expressed my dissatisfaction with the fitness of an user, Robert McClenon, remaining an arb clerk. I am afraid those concerns have not been resolved. His poor handling of a more recent dispute has further aggravated the concern, and I noticed he recently inappropriately suggested to another editor that approaching a clerk on their user talk page is tendentious. Did you end up pursuing your complaint in relation to him with the arbs any further? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello John Carter:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 23 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 09:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case: special arangements
Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello John Carter:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 24 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 09:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

TAFI week 22, 2015 update
Please note that Personality is also an article for improvement for week 22, 2015. Thank you. Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 01:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello John Carter:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 25 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 06:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration proposed decision posted
Hello. The proposed decision for the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed to as a party, has been posted. Thank you, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello John Carter:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 26 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 04:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello John Carter:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 27 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 18:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello John Carter:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 28 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 20:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 4
Newsletter • May/June 2015

Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:

The directory is live!

For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.

A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.

Stuff in the works!

What have we been working on?


 * A new design template—This has been in the works for a while, of course. But our goal is to design something that is useful and cleanly presented on all browsers and at all screen resolutions while working within the confines of what MediaWiki has to offer. Additionally, we are working on designs for the sub-components featured on the main project page.
 * A new WikiProject talk page banner in Lua—Work has begun on implementing the WikiProject banner in Lua. The goal is to create a banner template that can be usable by any WikiProject in lieu of having its own template. Work has slowed down for now to focus on higher priority items, but we are interested in your thoughts on how we could go about creating a more useful project banner. We have a draft module on Test Wikipedia, with a demonstration.
 * New discussion reports—We have over 4.8 million articles on the English Wikipedia, and almost as many talk pages as well. But what happens when someone posts on a talk page? What if no one is watching that talk page? We are currently testing out a system for an automatically-updating new discussions list, like RFC for WikiProjects. We currently have five test pages up for the WikiProjects on cannabis, cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and Ghana.
 * SuggestBot for WikiProjects—We have asked the maintainer of SuggestBot to make some minor adjustments to SuggestBot that will allow it to post regular reports to those WikiProjects that ask for them. Stay tuned!
 * Semi-automated article assessment—Using the new revision scoring service and another system currently under development, WikiProjects will be getting a new tool to facilitate the article assessment process by providing article quality/importance predictions for articles yet to be assessed. Aside from helping WikiProjects get through their backlogs, the goal is to help WikiProjects with collecting metrics and triaging their work. Semi-automation of this process will help achieve consistent results and keep the process running smoothly, as automation does on other parts of Wikipedia.

Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.

The WikiProject watchers report is back!

The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.

Until next time, Harej (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
 * 2) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
 * 3) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello John Carter:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 29 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 00:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Co-op Pilot Results & Mentoring
Hey there! The Co-op has been on a hiatus for a bit, but we are planning on opening up shop again soon. When you're able, please read over and respond to this update on our talk page. We have favorable results from our final report regarding the pilot, and we are interested in seeing who is available to mentor when we reopen our space and begin to send out invites again. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This message was sent by via Mass Message. (Opt-out instructions)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello John Carter:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 30 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 02:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello John Carter:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 31 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 09:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello John Carter:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 32 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 12:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement – discussion about changing project processes



 * Hello :
 * A discussion is occurring at Change project processes regarding potential changes to the Today's articles for improvement Wikiproject. Your input is welcomed at the discussion.

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 11:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

TAFI's List of articles



 * Hello John Carter:


 * A discussion is occurring at the TAFI talk page regarding potential changes to the project's List of articles page. Your input is welcome at the discussion.

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 04:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

TAFI List of articles purge, part II



 * Hello John Carter:


 * A discussion is occurring at the TAFI talk page regarding the removal of entries from the project's List of articles page. Your input is welcome at the discussion.

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You were invited. You're not butting in.
StevenJ81 (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. 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/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Women
Sorry to hear you're feeling dejected with the site at the moment. I feel like that most days on here. I think you've probably got too caught up in the politics of the site. Always good to take a break and come back and focus on content. If you're up for it, any chance you could help set up Template:WikiProject Women project assessment categories and structure?♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Add the categories before today, and started the bot to run today. I don't know how long it will take to get the bot to generate a list, though. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks John, much appreciated. I'm sure, and  are pleased too!♦  Dr. Blofeld  17:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Very much so! Thank you both! SusunW (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. You're the best! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto.--Ipigott (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:


 * , who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy.  A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
 * , second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
 * , first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany.  Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
 * , second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
 * , from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
 * , from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
 * , from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
 * , also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

, and  11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Requesting clarification
Sir, thank you for clearly stating the matter regarding the importance of primary sources with regards to doctrinal issues. I just one question regarding this principle. '''Does this reasoning also apply to the matter of religious labeling of an individual or group? For example, if a historical (non alive) scholar is labelled as a "Quranist" (by a few secondary sources), while the primary sources reject this title, how should this case be handled?''' I was told that secondary sources are to be given weight, according to WP:PSTS, and that such a title can not be disputed, unless a 3rd party source challenges this title. Is this correct? Thank you for your time. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  16:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A few specifics would probably be welcome. In general, so far as I can tell, "Quranist" refers to Quranism. The impression I get from that article is that there is a bit of a spectrum within the field of "Quranism." So, for instance, although Joe Lieberman has been called an Orthodox Jew in the United States, particularly given his haircut among other things, he would probably if not definitely fail to meet the minimum standards of what tends to be called in Israel today orthodox Jews, where the term is so far as I can tell used almost exclusively to describe what might be counted as more "extreme" versions of orthodoxy.
 * Regarding secondary and tertiary sources taking priority over primary sources, we often face a similar question regarding, for instance, Mormonism and sometimes groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses and their status as "Christian." I know of more than one Chrsitian group which has clearly stated that Mormons are not Christians, and several third-party sources which agree with those churches say the same thing. The same sort of thing, although, admittedly, less frequently, has happened to the JWs. In cases like that, where there might be a question as to whether the independent sources are or are not independent of some group which has markedly different views of the definition of the term in question, we would tend to try to find the most highly regarded reference works on the topic and see what they say first.
 * In a lot of cases regarding the specific term you use above and similar cases, we might try to find some alternate phrasing to use as a primary descriptor, and only use terms like that one, where the definition of the term, and usage of the term, varies depending upon the who it is who is using the term, and what definition they hold to, the controversy would probably be best discussed in whatever article deals most specifically with the matter of the possibly variant definition of the term. So, for instance, if a Catholic theologian is explicitly called by some journals a Christian theologian, but other journals strongly tied to anti-Catholic Christian groups don't, we would find that the prevailing academic consensus, that Catholics are Christians, would allow us to call that person a Christian theologian. However, we would probably opt to call him a Catholic theologian, because that is more specific.
 * Does that in any way help answer the question you asked? John Carter (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much sir for that detailed explanation. Allow me to bring up the specifics so that you may advise me on the best practices regarding the issue at hand. I'm referring to the labeling of Ghulam Ahmed Pervez as a "Quranist", because this term has been used in some newspapers to refer to him as such. Parwez himself adamantly rejected this title, and there are multiple primary sources attesting to this. Now, this is not a "religion" but "religious labeling" of a prominent scholar, so the matter is subtle and slightly different, and I believe it requires an expert opinion to arbitrate, such as yours. I'm currently discussing the issue on the talk page here: A user is insisting that the "Quranist" title be given "most importance", even though such a title is in dispute with the primary sources, and also, the vast majority of the secondary scholarly sources do not emphasize (or even mention) that the said scholar was a "Quranist". I've tried to make this case clear on the talk page in the "Discussion" section (nested under the "Please review this content before I insert it" category). I trust your expertise in such matters and will highly appreciate your input. If you can spare some time to help improve that page I will be most grateful. Thank you. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  18:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you sir for your clear and detailed input regarding the matter, much appreciated. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  20:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Issue from Kim Davis
Hi, John,

I have noted your response at that talk page, although I didn't respond there, because it was already leading us off the proper topic for that place. I do hope you see my point that legal clarities may be legally clear, but that they solve nothing, and in fact can serve to fuel disorder. Many people just don't seem to get the fact that there is a matter of conscience involved. These same people praise the idea of freedom of conscience, and even enroll it in world declarations of human rights, but they don't even want to give it a hearing in this situation because they happen to disagree with the actions of the individual. I grant the legal violations. So where does that leave things? I can't speak to the wisdom of just how Kim Davis is handling her own situation of conscience, but I don't criticize her for having a conscience and for following it. Laws are not supreme, not even for law-abiders. What do we get in this country if people are forced to choose between their conscience and doing their job? Well, we get the situation where some people, at least, will come to regard those particular jobs as something to be avoided, as disreputable, or even as immoral. Is that the way we want government jobs to be viewed? And what causes it? The kind of governance that is willing to violate a citizens' conscience under penalty of law, which is backed up by the highest power and governmental authority. That turns government, governance, and the law itself into personal enemies, and breeds discontent, unrest, and dissent, never good for the society. The issue is the application of force. A certain amount is required in order to maintain order, but too much, or the wrong type, produces disorder instead, sometimes even to the point of revolution. Now, we're not talking the truly extreme cases here, but we do have a case with a lot of social volatility behind it - look how this one event is spinning into a sensation. Sorry, but law is insufficient for this kind of human problem. There are always limits to any kind of governance, always have been, always will, no matter who, when, where, or what political system is involved. Look at history; it's a universal.

It's comfortable to depend on rule of law. It's just that that is not a dependable thing to be comfortable with. It's worth noting that the ancient Greek democracies did not last very long, two or three centuries tops. And the US is 240 this year. And how did the others come apart? Through the majority suppressing the minority, fanned by shouters who worked at riling people up into a mob, and persecuting individuals who earlier in their lives had been acclaimed as their heroes. The US is not there yet, but it is moving that direction. And our politics is so dysfunctional that the largest plurality of voters (almost a majority) refuse even to claim political loyalties. Just how effective is the law? And would more power add to its effectiveness, or subtract from it? Evensteven (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You of course realize that everything you have said above is, basically, POV. Speaking as a person who has voted conservative for about 30 years and been a government employee, I know that several states require an oath to adhere to the laws of the state and country of all employees. I don't know if that is true of Kentucky, but it could well be, I don'[t know, that Davis herself may have taken such an oath. If she has, then she has no only violated the law, but also her oath, which could reasonably be seen as making her disqualified to serve in office of any sort.
 * You are free to have your opinions regarding "rule of law" and how those whose job it is to ensure the rule of law have a right to break the law when they so choose. However, I remember having heard news reports over the past week (yes, plural) that the laws are quite clear regarding these matters, and that in fact she is violating her duties by very, very selectively choosing to allow only those laws with which she agrees to be officially sanctioned in her area. One wonders whether if she were a Cathar, whether she would allow any marriage certificates at all, or, if she were a Muslim, whether she would rule out an interfaith marriages involving Muslims and non-Muslims, or any number of other variations. If the people of her area all agreed with her, maybe it wouldn't be an issue, but they clearly don't, which means that she is, basically, putting herself before the law and before the interests of those members of her community which disagree with her on her personal beliefs. It is also worth noting that she would be denying these individuals the right to inheritance or family visits in the ER, which are generally denied to non-married couples of one or both sexes. Much, if not most, of the above comment seems to me to be more of a personal political statement than anything of encyclopedic value, and I would hope that we don't have this site turned into a political forum. And, yes, speaking as someone who has voted consistently conservative for about 30 years, I don't necessarily like the law she has to enforce, but she has the option of allowing someone else to enforce the law and/or going to some place where the law is different. The fact that she has chosen to place her personal beliefs, which are rather clearly out of step with the existing laws (whether I like them or not), and declared that her personal religious opinion is of more importance than the laws of her state and country, and that she will ignore the latter if they disagree with the former, would be at best disturbing in any country.
 * And allow me to say that I am frankly appalled by the following: "The kind of governance that is willing to violate a citizens' conscience under penalty of law, which is backed up by the highest power and governmental authority. That turns government, governance, and the law itself into personal enemies, and breeds discontent, unrest, and dissent, never good for the society. The issue is the application of force." You seem to be for whatever reason seem to be giving every single individual's personal opinions regarding all matters which might even be theoretically, at some future time, relevant to possible laws a priori importance before the laws themselves.
 * I also just looked over the page and saw that she is, in fact, an elected official. That means this woman was elected to serve a role of service to the people of her county. She has, in fact, since the election, when I am sure she did take an oath similar to the one I described, because all elected officials I know of do, has chosen to say, basically, that the laws that the government has implemented take less priority to her than her own personal opinions. In no way is such a person qualified to serve the people in such a position. If her conscience is so important to her, then she should step down from office. The only people who make lists of "personal enemies" are the individuals who place themselves as persons who have decided that the law is their enemy. Well, if they think that, then they are free to either move to some place with different laws or try to change those laws. They are not however free to actively violate the laws and say that others have to allow them to do so because of their personal beliefs. It is an issue about the application of force, however, and, in this case, Ms. Davis is applying the force of her choosing to violate the laws and the oath she took to abide by them on those individuals who are seeking to adhere to the law simply by the brute force of her refusal to abide by the law.
 * If we declare the conscience of each and every individual in the country as taking priority over the laws of the country, we have, basically, just said there are no laws, as some person somewhere will be able to say "in conscience" that they disagree with it. I have no reservations whatsoever, and in fact support, doctors and hospitals which choose to not take part in abortion related activities, and am happy that we have such institutions. I welcome seeing those groups and individuals who are not obligated by law and their own oaths to act in accord with their consciences. However, if we allowed every government official to do whatever their conscience permitted them to do, over and above the law, then I wonder whether anyone would be able to trust any one of those government officials, given that they would have no clear way of knowing whether those government officials would declare that some law enacted since they took office was in some way contrary to their own beliefs or conscience. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course, John, what I've said is POV. That's why I said it here, where it wouldn't be disruptive to article development. I hope I haven't riled you, because it still looks to me like you are taking what I said as condoning her actions, and I'm not. I came here to try to make that clear at least. But neither am I condemning her. I'm just leaving that part alone. What I am saying is that the conflicts are between things people care deeply about, for good reason, and things they need to treat seriously in their lives. And they do treat them seriously. All the things. Kim Davis is not some wanton criminal. Neither is she a person without a conscience. But she feels forced to make a choice. I can't say how right or wrong she is in that, or if she is making wise choices. But I am saying that she recognizes the conflict between law and conscience, and that is something I hope that all people recognize, because its potential is always there. And there are certain things in governance, especially the application of the power of the state, that can push people to make such choices because it does not allow them freedom of operation. She feels that in this issue, she does not have freedom of religion. Do you see? It's not a question of how the law defines it, it's a question of how the law makes its demands upon the individual and how the individual reacts to that. I can't say that I want to see anyone break the law either. Neither do I want them to hand over their conscience to the state. That is something the dictators and totalitarian governments always seem to demand. And neither do I want the US government to follow that path. So, there's the extent of my political view. But what I've been trying to get at is that these conflicts always eat at people in this way. It raises turmoil and disrupts societies. It is unhealthy. And good governance, including good laws, take that into account and seek to avoid putting people in these kinds of positions, for the sake of the society they govern. That's not something I see happening in the US, which is my opinion, but it's a widespread opinion, which is why there's a public controversy. I truly can't see that voting conservative or voting liberal makes any difference to the fact that these are issues that keep arising in many human societies, and that has been more my point. Both fascist and communist forms of government have been totalitarian, and abuse of peoples' consciences has been practiced by both right and left. If I'm disturbed by seeing it happen in the US, it's partly because I see it happening from both sides of the political spectrum. But my point is still not about my own political discomforts, but about the fact that much political discomfiture is going on in the US. It's things like this that happen when people get backed into a corner. And the more people feel that, the more things like this start to happen. That's a political reality, and not something that laws can dictate. There's my point. People will respect and follow laws up to a point, and then they will follow to a different point when pushed, and then to another point when really coerced, and eventually they won't, but will stand and fight. I'm not hiding all my own opinions here, but I'm not principally talking about them. Rather, I'm making a social observation, based on history, that laws are not supreme. There is much power, but not supremacy. Conscience has little power collectively, but much individually. Yet these opposing forces seek equilibrium, a place of lesser tension. Not always peacefully, though. Like you, I hope for better choices than the ones Kim Davis sees.


 * So, I am not condoning each and every individual's practice of conscience and holding it above the law. Kim Davis will have to answer to the law for her actions, and it is only right for her to expect that going in. (I can't say that she seems to have realized that, though.) The thing about this case, though, is that the law she is opposing violates not only her own conscience, but that of a huge segment of the population. It's not a majority, so the injustice lies in the majority's exercise of power over the minority. That law is not wise governance, and it always was destined to create this kind of trouble. Religion has always defined what marriage is and is not. It's the law's fault that it has thought to interfere. It has the power to do so, but not the right. So there is no reason to be surprised. I feel fortunate in not having to confront a personal situation regarding this particular law, but I will not condone this law and will not support it. If that appalls you, I do regret that. The attitude is, however, of the foundation of this nation, who defied the laws of Britain and claimed conscience in their revolt, and carried the revolt to completion even while only comprising one third of the population. I don't think this current law will provoke that scale of rebellion, but I do think it provokes a high enough level of tension that it makes for poor governance, to the detriment of the nation. And I find that appalling. Evensteven (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, please do not say it here. I regret that I have very little use for, of even interest, in the political opinions of other editors on pretty much anything, and I find that the practice can be seen to be rather close to WP:SOAPBOXING, which is itself problematic, Also, unfortunately, such discourses cannot be very easily seen as in any way contributing to the building of an encyclopedia. If you review the history of my page, long as it is, I think you will see that I have rather rarely engaged in off-topic conversation of any real length about anything here, and I don't expect that habit to change regarding this topic. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Then my apologies, John. I had simply wanted to try to clear up a misunderstanding between us, something I consider to be particularly relevant to constructive work at WP, whether or not directly related to a specific article. And to that end, I did not mean to offend. It is certainly a hot issue, and affects us all quite deeply. I'm sorry that I seem to have intruded instead. Evensteven (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you please move the last comment
Hi John, I made a discussion section for the proposal. Would you consider moving your comment to keep the proposal focused without comments? AlbinoFerret 20:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Generate list of users from a particular geo-location
Hi John Carter, I am looking for ideas that would allow me compile a list of Ghanaian editirs so I can get in touch with them and ask some questions. Please feel free to join the conversation here. Regards —M@sssly ✉ 04:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a vote
Hi John, thanks for your comment a few minutes ago at Kim Davis. Could you please provide, at the start of your comment, a single asterisk followed by the words "One article" or "Two articles" in bold (or something similar) then followed by your comments? It will help us see how consensus is going. Thanks! Prhartcom (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Sorry John! I see you did vote, further down below your comment. Maybe move your comment into your vote comment, then? I'm just trying to avoid confusion. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry John, maybe just ignore me completely here! I was just confused for awhile, but I see that you were just commenting on another person's !vote. I simply thought it was a rouge comment without a !vote for a moment there, but it was my mistake. Cheers, Prhartcom (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Friendly Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

signed

NotAlpArslan (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)