User talk:John Carter/Archive 3

Mighty Morphin Army Ranger
Not sure if you're doing this just to be daft or irritating or you genuinely believe it or what, but to set the record straight, as you would have known if you'd spent any time at all reviewing my posts over at Wikipediocracy, I'm not American, I'm English. And quite obviously, just because someone chooses a user name like 'Mighty Morphin Army Ranger', is not an indication that they are, or ever have been, in the military. I don't collect Power Rangers either, if that's where you were about to go next. Truth be told, it's been too long for me to actually remember why I chose it. I suspect it's just because it's cool (and you know it). In summary...Ego, yes, Army, no. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To notify the people there, obviously. I realize you may not be able to understand this, but (1) the posters at wikipediocracy are clearly permitted to post, but there is no sort of membership, despite your ridiculous misrepresentation to the country, and (2) despite your apparent thinking to the contrary, you and how you react to people are nowhere near as important as you apparently believe.
 * Also, I guess, I have to tell you that, because your commenting here is I believe both clearly daft and irritating, I will have to request that you stay off this page. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI
Thanks for your ping at here, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to give comments there based on whether this affects my speech. So I thank you for your kind words about me, but unfortunately for the time being I'm afraid to use my speech in that capacity. Unless you had any other advice to me about that, good luck to you. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That specifically mentions only "articles," not other pages, and I would certainly think that under the circumstances "expert input" regarding the controversies would be welcome, but I can see your reservations, and will specifically request there that any comments you might make regarding the issue itself on that page be considered outside the scope of the ban. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not provide my speech in that capacity, John, unless I know for certain that I would not be sanctioned for my speech. Unfortunately, I fear that I'm not sure even though it only mentions "articles" as you say, and not other pages. Unless I hear otherwise from a formal capacity statement, I'm afraid to speak there as you've asked. Let me know if you have further advice to me about that. Thank you very much for your value of my input, I really appreciate it. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking only as an individual arbitrator, I would not consider a meta comment about the topic area at the Motions page to be a breach of your topic ban provided you stuck to the point and did not discuss the pros and cons of any individual NRM. I will flag this question up to my colleagues though to hopefully give you more certainty. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Thryduulf, that is most appreciated. I'll respectfully take no action with regard to above until I hear back definitive clarification about my potential ability to participate in discussion about this issue. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with . Stick to the meta-issues around the motion and you're fine. Courcelles (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for taking the time to comment here, it means a lot to me. I'll have to think about whether or not to participate in discussion there. I don't want to get embroiled in anything and though I'm heartened that my input is valued, I'll have to ruminate on it a bit more. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

could you summarize the basis of what's going on, and specifically what you'd value some input about? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the motion that is proposed is to basically remove the existing sanctions on a rather sizable number of articles and topics which broadly fall in the field of NRMs into a broader group of sanctions to cover the larger field of NRMs in general, possibly with some limits as to time of origination of the groups in question. It has been argued by Courcelles that there hasn't been a lot of evidence presented that the broad field of NRMs is problematic. That strikes me as a not unreasonable comment, given the lack of evidence which has been presented, but my own feeling is that, for the most part, the topic of NRMs/cults is really not a lot different from those of pseudoscience and alternative medicine, both of which are, if I remember, similar topics to NRMs. They all seem to deal with the sometimes questioned use of the terms themselves, particularly including the usage of the world "cult" and similar. They also often, because of the comparative newness and sometimes comparable lack of coverage in really independent reliable sources, often present different faces in various ways to the outside world. Personally, as I don't think all "pseudoscience" is necessarily controversially described as such, although that entire topic area is currently under sanctions, I can't see any really good reasons for not instituting a similar broad sanction here. But, anyway, that's just my opinion. Does that make it any clearer at all? John Carter (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Your assessment is most logical. I agree with your analysis and recommendation. Your comparison to pseudoscience and alternative medicine is also quite appropriate. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many books that class your above-mentioned topic in the same exact field as pseudoscience and alternative medicine, including for example the book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. I'd also suggest you ask folks at WP:WikiProject Medicine to weigh in, as they're probably quite experienced in dealing with those topics. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You can quote my above comments elsewhere, if you like. I hope that's helpful to you and to the community. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

NRMs
John, don't want to clutter up the motions page, at least not before I understand the exact scope. Some of the examples I was alluding to include: These three in addition to 3HO are top of the mind recall for me, but I know I've come across a wide variety more in my India patrolling. Our articles on all these are essentially advertorials, but maybe there's some hope. I don't know about the books you refer and I have no idea at all about this space, so my references are essentially how newspapers treat them. If you get the chance, it'd be nice to get your opinions on these and some others like them (w.r.t. the NRM tag). cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Rampal who runs(/ran?) a Kabir Panth sect that was often referred to as a cult
 * 2) Dera Sacha Sauda which is technically an offshoot of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas but has been identified as a new religious movement or cult
 * 3) Dera Sach Khand / Ravidassia religion (this might perhaps be the newest religion)
 * Well, FWIW, I know the Radha Soami Satsang Beas is counted as an NRM, and discussed as such in some sources, so, presumably, any of its offshoots would qualify as well.I've downloaded the articles and will try to find what I can on them. It might not be until next week that I really get a response back however. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No hurry at all, I just think it'd be something to be aware of when the next round of problems crop up around these articles. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for clarification
I'm sorry I confused you. What I meant to say was this: in this specific situation, Betacommand is helping the encyclopedia by alerting other editors to problems in various places. If we interpret the banning policy as Belchior90 did, saying that such edits are prohibited by the ban, we're preventing Betacommand from doing something that's unambiguously helping the encyclopedia, so if the banning policy is a rule that prohibits Betacommand from taking this kind of action, we need to ignore that rule in this specific situation. Since Belchior filed an ANI thread against Betacommand for helpful edits, and since Belchior was doing various other problematic stuff, e.g. blanking helpful edits by Betacommand, I considered Belchior to be harassing Betacommand for helping. Basically, the entire statement ("Betacommand is breaking a rule, but the rule prevents him from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, so policy demands that we not pay attention. Stop harassing someone for helping") was directed specifically at Belchior; here I was assuming that Betacommand was breaking the rules, rather than attempting to get into a discussion over whether it were rulebreaking or not.

Hoping this is clear; if not, let me know and I'll try to explain myself better. Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

alternate proposal
Do you want to withdraw / snow close the alternate proposal? It's not going to pass, obviously. NE Ent 01:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No way. There are still five days to go. John Carter (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's 0-11. Why make folks waste time posting oppose votes? NE Ent 01:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if I'm counting right, 53 folks have already voted on the primary proposal and it's obviously going to pass 40-13. Had you made the proposal initially, it'd be fine and I might have supported it. Why muddy the waters on something that's on a clear and obvious trajectory? NE Ent 01:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the more obvious question is why you are so dead set against it. Why are you afraid of letting the processes play out as they are supposed to? John Carter (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to it being left open, but short of your satisfaction I don't see the point. You must realize that it cannot pass, for one thing it lacks any support and another thing is that another proposal that contradicts it is passing. WP:SNOW applies, being "afraid of letting the processes play out" does not apply. Hard to be afraid of something that is not going to have any effect. I won't be re-closing it but it is pretty much there for your benefit alone at this point. HighInBC 15:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, you have already been reprimanded by others for your conduct in this thread. Your conduct is far from beyond reproach here, and I think most everyone but you has probably realized that. If you had bothered to read even the initial post to that subthread, which you rather clearly have not, you would realize that I specifically addressed the timing issue in it. Your personal conduct in this matter is to my eyes perhaps the most regrettable thing involved here, even more so than Floquenbeam's retirement. He had a reason for his actions, I regret to say I haven't seen any particular good reason for your own conduct in this matter. I find your conduct in this matter, particularly your rather self-righteous and self-serving addition to your own comment above,, perhaps even more contempible than several of the comments of Reguyla, which I have repeatedly said in several locations. He at least had a reason, however bad it was, for his conduct - I don't see any reason for your own at best dubious conduct in this matter. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ya okay. Sorry you feel that way. Hope you get what you are looking for by keeping your proposal open. HighInBC 15:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(Continued from archived thread.) Several editors have told you that it would be best to withdraw this proposal as it has zero support. I'm going to collapse it again now, as it muddies the water. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * and I will revert it, considering honestly that for all the arrogance I have been subjected to not one of you has appaqrently even bothered to read it. I do not believe that there is any remotely acceptable excuse in policy or guidelines for several individuals to determine that their individual opinions on something that apparently few if any of them have even bothered to read takes priority over the policies and guidelines of the project. I am aware of nothing in policy or guidelines that supports such a hatting, and, unless someone actually points out one to me, rather than continuing to arrogantly decide that a subsequent proposal is not worth being considered because it was introduced late. If anything, I think the conduct you and others are displaying here may well be as bad, if not in some cases worse, than that of the now banned individual you all seem to be becoming ever more like. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're editing against consensus. There was no support for the proposal, get over it. I've opened a pointless discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard about your actions. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In a word, bullshit. For your claim to have any rational support, and it clearly has none, it would have to have visible evidence that there is a consensus on the proposal. The proposal was finalized and the requested link only added recently. I find it ridiculous, repellent, and frankly laughable that so many people can so clearly engage in WP:IDHT ignoring of the specific nature of the proposal only linked to by me this morning. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Forwarded email
 ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 18:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Under the circumstances, I think it would be most useful if you provided a summary of the information you sent to me somewhere on wiki. John Carter (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I left a summary at the ANI thread in my last post there.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 18:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First, at some point, you might come to realize that there really isn't a hell of a lot of reason to use the "re" template on my own user talk page. None, in fact. I regret to say that I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe you are a careful or knowledgable editor. I also add that because, although I am certain you had no intention to do this, you gave me Hijiri88's e-mail address and, apparently, a form of his personal name. Considering the rather extreme efforts that you had taken before to ensure I didn't get such, that is to me a reasonable cause for concern. Perhaps you might make more of an effort to more visibly consider your comments here, in all locations, before making them, and, maybe, making more of an effort to understand your actions and their consequences. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, I was in a rush (you can see that I didn't edit for several hours since the above post) and it didn't cross my mind that you would be automatically notified regardless. And as for the email, I actually considered that for a few minutes. You hadn't responded as to whether you wanted me to forward the email or not yet, but I figured that you'd expect it since I mentioned it. Plus the fact that you accused me of opening the ANI thread on behalf of Hijiri (as in it was his idea/he asked me to do it), which the email proves otherwise. It also shows that I didn't open the thread because TH1980 posted at ArbCom (and why would I wait two days if that were the case?). Then I also figured that if I edited the email in any way you'd be suspicious of it and accuse me of making it up (although I didn't think of his name being there). Hijiri didn't want you to have his email because he was afraid you'd use it to harass him, although then a case could be made against you in that situation. This is just my thought process in this matter. How was it a "reasonable cause for concern"?  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 05:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a reasonable cause for concern because it is transparent evidence of your attempting to basically PROXY for Hijiri. First of all, you always have silly, pathetic excuses for yourself, and attempts at misdirection when your errors are pointed out to you, a lot like Hijiri88 himself from what I remember actually. Your claim that it took you two weeks to, basically, do little more than a cut-and-paste to ANI is pretty much transparently laughable, and I think it is reasonable at this point to say that it is becoming an ever bigger question at least to me whether the bigger problem here is Hijiri88, with his at best dubious competence, or Sturmgewehr88, who has rather clearly demonstrated both dubious competence and questionable behavior at the ARBREQ page, and, actually pretty much virtually everywhere I've seen you. However, and I guess I should ping to reassure him, I have rather more clear principles and care with the material of others than you do, I have no intention of circulating his name, or address. In fact, if you review some of the previous ANI discussions, you will see that I removed the name of concern and other identifying material to SilkTork, I think it was. However, given the rather regular displays of what are to my eyes truly mind-boggling incompetence on your particular part, I would not put it beyond you to try to do something silly and blame me for it. You seem to have taken on the role of Hijiri88's attack gerbil for some time, and, on that basis, I cannot say that I would put it beyond your dubious capacity to attempt that, if you feel that might be the only way to defend your comrade Hijri88. I would be personally really interested in exactly what the common 88 in both your names signifies, but, unfortunately, I think I have learned from experience that you at least can't really be trusted in matters of honesty, and Hijiri88's ability to recognize reality clearly if it disagrees with his preconceptions might make his ability to accurately relate information questionable. And, finally, considering that the at best dubious conduct of at least the both of you, and probably others, including some on what you both rather militaristically have apparently determined is "the enemy side" (possibly correctly, I dunno), I guess I can tell you what I told Hijiri88 some time ago, specifically, to stay off this page. Hijiri88, as the record can clearly demonstrate, decided to act against that recently, which, given his standard of behavior overall, doesn't really surprise me, but I think both of you might now that if there is any further dimwitted violation of the requests of others to stay off their pages, ArbCom will look at that too. And, don't worry, there is no reason I can think of to ever want to directly deal with your incompetence and insistence on attempted distraction from same any time soon from either of you on any user talk pages. Unfortunately, that seems to be another characteristic you both share. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for all the insults buddy, and also the particularly dickish request that I don't edit your talk page again, considering that you showed up on my talk page uninvited a few days ago. You must be blind to think that that email makes a case for proxying at all. Where in that email did Hijiri ask me to do this? And it didn't take me two weeks to copy/paste a list, it took me two weeks to find the time to deal with the [transparently laughable] that an ANI case would inevitably bring, which you faithfully proved to be true. You think you're better than others and can't take any criticism, and even project your own faults onto others. I hope ArbCom investigates your behavior zealously.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 18:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sturmgewehr, thank you for once again displaying your at least possibly ridiculous lack of understanding of the guidelines of this site. I specifically asked you to stay off this page above, but, apparently, you may not have bothered to read that comment any more than your read the directions at the ArbReq page, or, possibly, elsewhere. You were told to stay off my page rather explicitly, but, evidently, it was more important for you to post yet another remarkably irrelevant dcommetn. Thank you for once again demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the guidelines of this site, which directly relate to matters of WP:CIR, but, please understand, despite yuur perhaps apparent insistence that you are not bound by conduct guidelines, let me repeat once again, please stay off this page. Believe me, your repeated inability to adhere to even the most basic guidelines, including the guidelines at the ArbReq page and your obnoxious insistence on posting of an at best dubious comment here, in clear and direct violation of my explicit request, will be something they will consider. And I do not think that I am better than others, despite your own insulting attempt at saying as much above. I just try to make some attempt to know what I am doing. Apparently, however, you may be incapable of differentiating between the two.
 * But, once again, because you seem not to have bothered to read before insisting on your rather inappropriate resposne above, stay off this page. If you have any conduct concerns about me, as I very clearly have about you, the place to raise them is the ArbCom, not here. I would have thought you might know that. Apparenlty, I was wrong. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Passing comment
I think it might be wisest to leave the drama board alone for 48 hours. I think you made your point, and now you're labouring it. You are not being your usual insightful self right now. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI
Re: —you're right, it's up to ArbCom what is within scope of the case. The disputes between the lot of you may fall within the bounds of the case, but the case I brought up at ANI (editwarring over an invalid GA nomination) clearly is not—it involves neither Hijiri nor Catflap. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Curly Turkey it does involve however at least one of those individuals who have requested that they be listed as parties, and it is often the case that the ArbCom will review the general behavior of all those invovled as well. And, again, I very, very much think that it would be an at best unfortunate rush to judgement for any individual to, entirely on their own, attempt to determine for others what they will deal with. Particularly after it has been indicated by apparently more than one editor that the belief of one individual that it is unrelated has been questioned by more than one other person. CN has requested that he be a party to the case, and edit-warring over a topic in which he has had regular interaction with at least one of the other parties involved, like he did in the discussion Dennis Brown linked to in his statement requesting the case, and in the GA matter of that article, is probably relevant to that case. If either of those parties, or others involved in the case, acted in such a way in the GA process for that article that is unacceptable, that is probably worth the consideration of the arbs as maybe perhaps an indication of broader misconduct by one or more of those individuals, including me. That evidence may very well be worth the arbs considering when determining what sanctions, if any, they seek to levy on those involved. At the very least, I think it would be reasonable to at least wait until CN finds out if his name is to be added, and have no doubt that I as an indivdiual will include a link to that full discussion in my evidence, if no one else does before me, when I present it to the arbs. However, that is gonna take more than a good deal of time to gather, so it may not be for a couple of days. Also, honestly, admitting the GAN template seems to have been imperfectly added this most recent time, without any text in it, Frankly, it might be better, and more productive, to raise concerns at one of the talk pages of the GA WikiProject informing them of the rather unusual nature of this second request. If the reviewer were to decide to do a quickfail based on inadequate changes to the article since its GAR, and I myself once got a quick fail notice on one of my own futile attempts at a GAC, that would resolve the matter more effectively than anything at ANI could. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * it does involve however at least one of those individuals who have requested that they be listed as parties: Irrelevant. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Curly Turkey, and if that is all you saw in my response, then your own comment is perhaps just as, if not more, problematic. And, by the summary nature of your response, I regret to say that I have to assume you didn't actually read my response. John Carter (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I read it. The only thing I felt the need to respond to was that comment.  CurtisNaito's requesting to be listed as an involved party has nothing to do with what I brought up at ANI, even if he gets listed.  I object strongly to the (apparently succussful) attempts to filibuster the ANI. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If that is your response, then do me the favor and stop commenting here regarding the matter altogehter. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Posting on my talk page.
Er. Just don't. At all. You're not doing any good. Far from it. Begoon &thinsp; talk 16:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted
Hi John Carter. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

User:Caden
Look a little closer at his user boxes. The burgundy pornography one.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User boxes are userboxes though, unless they are specifically created by the individual in question, and so far as I can tell that one wasn't, it wouldn't necessarily make a lot of sense to criticize him for using a premade userbox. Unless, of course, he added the image himself to the userbox at some point. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * John have a look at this because Bugs explains about the user box. For the record i did not make that box nor did i have anything to do at all with that image. blofeld is giving misleading facts to make me look bad when the only bad person here is him. I'm sick of his bullying and sick of all his crap.  Caden   cool  22:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt you, and I saw the additions to the ANI thread indicating the image was changed after the fact. I don't know if you have any idea how many userboxes I have created, but if you had, believe me, you would know that I am the last one to criticize anyone for using any of the ones I created. Hell, if you wanted another one with a different layout, just look at User:John Carter/Userboxes. I think I made most of them there and could create another one with a different image.
 * FWIW, which ain't much, I am no fan of porn myself. Or pedophilia. Or prostitution. But, if you check, I think I am or at least was a member of most all of the projects related to them, and I pretty much created the WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work task force because a working prostitute from Southeast Asia (I think) wanted to develop content related to her work, and wanted help to do that, and that made sense to me. Unfortunately, at the time, I knew of no real encyclopedic sources on the topic, and if you look at the various Bibliography of encyclopedias pages you'll see just how almost obsessed I am with using encyclopedic sources.
 * To the best of my knowledge, I don't remember having ever seen your name before today. So, I don't know a damn thing about you. There are a lot of articles related to porn, and although I might wish otherwise I want as many people involved in making them good articles by our standards as possible. For trying to help do that, which I am going to assume you have been doing, I salute you.
 * I myself have been called insane, an, um, illegitimate child, and someone, um, unusually interested in animals and/or children and/or holes in the ground, and various other things over the years around here. I can't argue the first one, the second one isn't my fault, and if you look at my userboxes I am apparently interested in pretty near everything, possibly to an unusual degree. And I've even recently been called a "nig ger" (that's the way it was spelled) on my page here in an edit which has since been oversighted. Unfortunately. I might have liked keeping it around myself.
 * If there is a real pattern of denigration of you, like I said elsewhere, sorry about that, and I mean that, but you would be best served by indicating the existence of the pattern, rather than focusing just a single incident. Otherwise, for the most part, try to ignore them.
 * And, if you want another user box for the field of pornography, let me know, preferably with an idea of which one you know of that looks like a good basis for comparison. You'll probably have to say that here, though. John Carter (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont work on porn articles or sex articles. I work on music articles mostly or sometimes soccer or World War 2 related things. But now I dont even know why I bother.  Caden  cool  23:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, pretty much, I understand. I don't have the guts to work on much any content on my own unless I am absolutely sure that it meets all the guidelines, and that don't happen often. I don't work on many articles other than the Bibliography articles I mentioned above. I am trying to develop some indicators of which encyclopedias are available with the best coverage of topics for our articles, though, and have downloaded the whole bloody Guide to Reference from the ALA website. I intend to finish the additions to the Bibliography pages, lists of articles in those works like WikiProject Religion/Prospectus, and also prep some of the PD articles listed as sources in the bibliographies of other current encyclopedias for wikisource. If you think I could do you any help in any of those fields, let me know.
 * I remember once talking to a now banned editor about why I edit here. Honestly, my regard for the place and its editors is probably on a par with your own in a lot of cases. But then I think of the number of other places out there which, maybe stupidly, use us as a source. I remember even in the past month hearing a KMOX reporter cite us as a source. That kind of scares me, particularly considering the reputation that station has. If even it, which has a rather highly regarded news department for a local radio station, uses us as a source, how many laymen do? The last thing I want is anyone coming to a place they think is reliable and finding crap information. On anything. This is, maybe, particularly true of a lot of high school kids, considering I've heard several parents say that the teachers tell their kids not to just copy our articles for reports. I'm a baby boomer, one of the last of them, and I remember some of the really stupid stuff I was told by my teachers as a kid. Granted, in the 60s and 70s, they may not have known better in a lot of cases, particularly if it wasn't their field. But it was still b.s. And having to unlearn things can be a hell of a lot harder than learning the right thing the first time. That's my motivation anyway.
 * World War II means a lot to a lot of people. And a lot of kids and younger adults are really into soccer. And sometimes people fight over silly things, like player stats or whatever. So, if I can speak for them, thanks for what you have done, and what you with luck might continue to do. If you were to want the ALA list of reference sources related to either WWII or soccer, let me know and I'll e-mail them to you, or try adding them to the Bibliography set. But for working to help on a lot of topics which mean a lot more to most people than anything I have ever edited, thanks for your work. And if there is anything you think I can do to maybe make it easier to find or develop content, I'd be happy to help. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're the first editor on wiki to ever thank me for all the hard work I've done on so many articles. How sad is that? One thanks from one person in all the years of my editing. So sad. Not even a barn star have i ever received for all my hard work. How sad is that? I've never been appreciated and never been made to feel welcome it seems. This place is cold and cruel and they do not appreciate years of hard work. I understand why so many leave. It's just not worth it. Thank you for thanking me though. That was nice to hear after so many years of hard work.  Caden  cool  23:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you definitely deserved that barnstar for " You are a disgusting filthy liar."♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Blo! All I did was tell the truth about you and for that I take great pride in. Now why don't you go talk privately again off wiki with Ritchie. I know how much you enjoy bad mouthing me behind my back, off wiki, in a private setting with all your wiki buddies.  Caden  cool  19:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Gabby's hats
Please compare my talkpage. The radical and also helpful thing would obviously be to remove all the and  (if indeed there are any habs) on the page and thus release the content from its dark confinement. But, though I'm sure Gabby can't have wanted it the way it is, I suspect she'll take umbrage if I mess with her page, since I've been warning her and stuff. Sigh. You know, warning her invisibly. Inside at least two hats. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case
''You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms'' arbitration case: For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))
 * 1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
 * 2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Thanks
...for the second. When the time comes I will add your comment to the finished product. TC,. Buster Seven   Talk  23:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes
Exactly. I'm always open to any "Sorry, I lost my cool, and it won't happen again". At this point, other admins. need to be aware that there was communication. — Ched : ?  18:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC) In fact, I deliberately left email as an option in the hopes that they would reconsider their efforts, and be able to communicate with someone they considered to be neutral. Time will tell. — Ched : ?  18:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. And thank you for the notice. From MMAR's talk page, I get the impression that maybe the most sympathetic admin might be Dennis Brown. Let's hope User:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger gets the idea as well. And, FWIW, if you have ever read WO, there was, basically, no way in hell I would judge you as perhaps suffering diminished capacity, as MMAR indicated. There are a rather few editors around here who have given me the impression that they may now be suffering some form of diminished capacity, but to the best of my knowledge I've never considered any admins in that group. If you had read it, maybe MMAR might get the not unreasonable idea that asking help from someone they have as an individual insulted in such a way isn't necessarily bright in and of itself. John Carter (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never really kept up with WO. I'd seen things in the past, but it's not really my cup of tea.  Like any group, there's good and bad in everything.  As far as the age things goes, I think it's (unfortunately) one of the few "isms" that's still acceptable.  Still, no point in belaboring the issue - and thank you for the kind words. — Ched :  ?  19:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Neophyte with question about addition to star of Bethlehem page
There's a new editor asking about this on my talk page. He wants to mention Hebrew/biblical cosmology. If there's any advice or help you can offer it would be much appreciated. Doug Weller (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * John-   This is Jon from Doug’s page (we talked about making a Hebrew Cosmology page).  I’ve registered as Equinox88.  Now looking at your logon names, I wonder if real names are normally used.  Is it bad form to have a handle type name?  Should I re-register under my real name (Jon Cleland Host)?  Anyway, it looks like some of what we talked about is already done.  We may not have a “Hebrew Cosmology” page, nor an “Ancient Near East Cosmology” page, but there are “Biblical Cosmology” and “Religious Cosmology” pages that already have the cosmology I described.  What about having “Hebrew Cosmology”, and “Ancient Near East Cosmology” redirect there?  Maybe add a little too.  Then look at adding to the Star of Bethlem page and referring to those pages (and the references they already use)?  Thanks – Equinox88 (Jon)  Equinox88 (talk)
 * You can call yourself whatever you want. My real name is nothing like John Carter, but when I sought adminship, which I've since withdrawn, I changed my account name from User:Warlordjohncarter, because someone said it looked to belligerent. If you ever decide to run for ArbCom or anything, you'll have to reveal your real name to the foundation, but, otherwise, any name works.
 * I can definitely see having Hebrew cosmology redirect to Biblical cosmology, because, basically, that is the same subject. I would be less sure of redirecting ANE cosmology, because this volume, which contains the old Hastings encycloepdia cosmology articles, has at least one separate article on Babylonian cosmology. Anything from the articles there could reasonably be added with proper attribution or citation, even word for word if wanted, because it is in the public domain.
 * The question about how to add material to the Star of Bethlehem article is going to be a bit of a concern because we will have to find a source specifically supporting what needs to be added. the link you added to Doug's talk page doesn't take me to any particular page, so I don't know what it says, but if we have any source which meets basic RS standards which states a specific link between the Star and Hebrew or Biblical cosmology, then I think basically just rephrasing it is probably the best approach. Although I can't know what it says, I think maybe at least a clause to the effect of "Consistent with the then-current Biblical cosmology, the writers of the story of the Star of Bethlehem described it as ..." Knowing exactly what the source says would be very valuable though. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarification on the name. : )   I had thought that it was likely Barsoomian, and sure enough, it is.  The link describes the Biblical cosmology, in a little more detail than the wiki page on Biblical Cosmology says - it's at the top of page 189, second paragraph, at that link.  I found similar stuff in the book you mentioned, but not as clear or in one place, so the stuff on the existing wiki Biblical cosmology page is better.  Yeah, ANE cosmology could redirect to the religious cosmology page.  Should I make those redirects?  Equinox88 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would still object to redirecting the ANE cosmology to Biblical cosmology, because I think quite a bit of the material from the Hastings ERE article on Babylonian cosmogony and cosmology, which I linked to above, could reasonably be added to a similar article here, and basically make it sufficiently long for an article on itself, and probably too long to be a reasonable section of a larger article.
 * The link on Doug's page talks about Hebrew cosmology, but doesn't necessarily relate it to the Star of Bethlehem per se, which, ideally, we would want to see to introduce material to the Star of Bethlehem page itself. Having said that, there are a hell of a lot of reference books dealing with the Bible, and I can try to find something in one of them which makes the connection and indicates its sources for doing so. Give me a few days on that, and I'll get back with you, probably by at latest the beginning of next week. But, if there is any material from the article in the Hastings encyclopedia I linked to above discussing it, or any material from that article you think should be added to ours, feel free to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was unclear. I never meant to suggest that ANE should redirect to Biblical Cosmology.  I did suggest that "Hebrew Cosmology" could redirect to "Biblical Cosmology".  Yes, a separate page for ANE cosmology sounds good.  Next weeks sounds good.  Best -  Equinox88 (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were an admin
Hello. When I sent this reply I thought that you were an admin. Sorry for the misunderstanding. HighInBC 17:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I had been an admin before, so no problems. John Carter (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I see, so my memory is not failing me. HighInBC 17:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but ...
please consider removing parts of this, or at least rewording some of it. Discussing an editor's "emotional needs" is not a good idea, especially when they can not respond. — Ched : ?  16:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of that is based rather clearly on the WO discussions, but, yeah, you're probably right. Will do. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. — Ched : ?  16:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/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/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88

 * 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, Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In short, this is because you suggested arbitration and because I can see that previous attempts at resolving this situation have all failed. I specifically said that, as far as I can tell, you're not choosing sides; I included you because you seem to understand the situation rather well.  Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response at the case request. Nyttend (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Germanic Neopaganism
Thanks for your comment, but I was referring to modern Odinism and Asatru as global movements. --ThorLives (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation
Greetings sir, I'd like to invite you to check out the new page I created: Ideas and Contributions of Ghulam Ahmed Pervez, resulting from the discussion/advice/suggestions from all the editors involved in the Parwez discussion (especially yours.) We have a strong consensus on all the major issues now. The bio page and this newly created page are both in a stable state and on the path towards growth. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  16:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much
John Carter,

Thank you very much for your kind words about me, and your trust.

I truly appreciate it very much.

Your trust and your appreciation for my Quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia means a great deal to me.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You earned it. God knows I am not in a position to say anyone has to be perfect, consider I myself have flubbed up big time more than once. The most heartening thing for me to see here is the statement by Courcelles, and I rather look forward to seeing him get his wish soon. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked about that at User_talk:Courcelles, but no response yet. :( &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Impressive
The bibliography is truly magisterial (I wish I knew a few more medieval or shakespearian turns of phrase to complement you further) - if only some of the airheads who inhabit these very very strange corriders could even fathom, that is one hell of a contribution for the status of bibliographies! well done. JarrahTree 23:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It isn't even close to being done yet, unfortunately. But, in time, with maybe the development of some more pages in Category:WikiProject prospectuses, which I am trying to do a little on too, we might be able to ultimately make the claim that we really are encyclopedic. John Carter (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Applying BLP to editors
Will you please clarify this for me? Are you suggesting that if I declared my name on Wikipedia I would be protected from unsubstantiated accusations from editors? RO (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First, for the record, my real name is nothing like John Carter, although John is my middle name. So in no way does it apply to me. Beyond that, I am more or less at or near my 500 word count there, so there isn't much I could add. But, at least to my eyes, the problem is in this particular case that a published article elsewhere basically has engaged in defamation of Eric, and that repetition of that material here, which might be one of the top returns from Google or whatever for a search of that name, would reasonably be considered problematic. It is on that basis, and pretty much only that basis, that I have reservations about Eric's block and its to my eyes undue length, because it seems to me the links to that article here may be increasing the Google returns for that article, and giving those statements excessive attention here, or any other grossly insulting material and/or obvious prejudicial misstatements of fact, should, I think, according to that policy, be treated like any other BLP violations. It would also, presumably, apply to some of the harassment received by GorillaWarfare, who has publicly revealed her identity here, and would, I think, reasonably qualify under protection by BLP as well. It might also apply, I suppose, to Carolmoore, should she ever return.
 * Personally, I might go further and say that grossly incivil comments about publicly known individuals might be treated more harshly, because not only do they cause insult to the editor but also may cost us that editor, but that would probably need to be discussed on the policy talk pages or whatever first before changes were made in that regard. John Carter (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You make some good points, I'll give you that, but am I missing something here? Because it looks to me that EC was only mentioned by name once in the article . How is it that people here are making this out to have been largely about him, when it doesn't look that way to me, like at all? RO (talk)  23:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He was not only mentioned by name, however, he was falsely said to be an admin, which, admittedly, isn't an insult, but could be said as indicating "how far he had fallen" or similar, and it is also worth noting that the "cunt" quote in the latest version of that article remains, and seems to be used in a way to indicate he regularly engages in such comments, which he really doesn't. He can be a bit harsher than many of us would like, but we have admins who can be rather boorish at times as well. And it is also worth noting that, I think the current version of the article on the publisher's site has been, from comments I've seen, edited a few times, to remove some of the errors, although I think those "errors" are still available to be seen here in some of the comments about earlier drafts of the article.
 * But, beyond that, yeah, although I haven't seen it explicitly addressed in policy yet, comments which would be considered BLP violations in articles would reasonably still be BLP violations elsewhere if directed against an editor here and that editor had a publicly known identity. And, maybe, one of the best ways to "enforce" civility, which seems to be something that at least some editors want to see implemented in some way, might best be accomplished by increments. Much like the so-called "Dole light" in the backs of cars, if it is found to be a violation of policy against a given number of editors, such that the comments get removed immediately, it would shortly become standard across the board, because not everyone will know whether someone insulted like that has publicly disclosed somewhere else on this site. Granted, recognition of the to my eyes obvious fact that BLP should apply equally to editors won't remove all derogation, because, honestly, some people do act like, well, psychologically disturbed individuals at times, and it makes sense to allow calling a spade a spade in those instances. But at least it would, I think, remove the grossly and uselessly insulting comments anyway. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with you, but there is no community consensus on what's "grossly and uselessly insulting", so it seems a little impractical. Still, it's an honorable idea. RO (talk)  23:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There isn't an real consensus yet, because I think no one has actually addressed the matter. Partially because, I think, in all honesty, no one wanted to open that can of worms. But the Atlantic article opened it anyway. My guess is that, if the idea were recognized as being what the policy was intended to say, which I think it was, is that such complaints will go to WP:BLPN and generally be resolved rather quickly there. And if anyone goes there too often, they can expect to pay for that. For most editors, I think WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:GRAPEVINE, and WP:NPF specifically "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care". I am pretty sure that the basic application of these would be rather clearly determined rather quickly if and when we do recognize that BLP does in fact apply to those people who publicly edit here. Saying all that does make me feel like Vince Oleck, though. Luckily, I don't think anyone knows what that might mean. John Carter (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I had to google it, but that's an different way to look at this whole issue. I think you make some sense, but getting consensus for that would be very difficult. RO (talk)  22:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In my statement on the request page, over the weekend, I said up front that I thought that the WMF legal representatives should be contacted on this matter, pretty much for much of the reasons identified here. If the foundations' legal representatives say anything about this, and, honestly, it would be hard for me to imagine they won't, and if something along the lines of what I said above is what they say, and again, based on the phrasing of BLP as it stands at this time, it is hard for me to think that they won't, the community may not have a great deal of input in that matter. Honestly, I'm not really that fond of it myself, but, like I said over at wikipediocracy, if an academic or other public figure was known to edit under some name here, and their conduct here was disparaged in such a way that it might have impact on his real-world affairs, I don't think there would be any question whatsoever about the matter. Eric isn't either of those, and is unlikely to sue in any event, but this does point out the possibility that a possibly very big, and maybe very expensive, case of that sort could certainly be possible under the existing rules here. And it would be soooo much easier to just change the rules to prevent that. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results
WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is. All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. , a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to. Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:


 * wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
 * wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
 * wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
 * wins the prize for fourth place
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
 * wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
 * wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

, and  18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 5
Newsletter • October 2015

Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:

We did it!

In July, we launched five pilot WikiProjects: WikiProjects Cannabis, Evolutionary Biology, Ghana, Hampshire, and Women's Health. We also use the new design, named "WPX UI," on WikiProject Women in Technology, Women in Red, WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. We are currently looking for projects for the next round of testing. If you are interested, please sign up on the Pilots page.

Shortly after our launch we presented at Wikimania 2015. Our slides are on Wikimedia Commons.

Then after all that work, we went through the process of figuring out whether we accomplished our goal. We reached out to participants on the redesigned WikiProjects, and we asked them to complete a survey. (If you filled out your survey—thank you!) While there are still some issues with the WikiProject tools and the new design, there appears to be general satisfaction (at least among those who responded). The results of the survey and more are documented in our grant report filed with the Wikimedia Foundation.

The work continues!

There is more work that needs to be done, so we have applied for a renewal of our grant. Comments on the proposal are welcome. We would like to improve what we have already started on the English Wikipedia and to also expand to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Why those? Because they are multilingual projects and because there needs to be better coordination across Wikimedia projects. More details are available in the renewal proposal.

How can the Wikimedia Foundation support WikiProjects?

The Wikimedia Developer Summit will be held in San Francisco in January 2016. The recently established Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in investigating what technical support they can provide for WikiProjects, i.e., support beyond just templates and bots. I have plenty of opinions myself, but I want to hear what you think. The session is being planned on Phabricator, the Wikimedia bug tracker. If you are not familiar with Phabricator, you can log in with your Wikipedia username and password through the "Login or Register: MediaWiki" button on the login page. Your feedback can help make editing Wikipedia a better experience.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/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/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/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/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 12:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ahanasius of Alexandria
Dear John Carter,

The Article Page, Athanasius of Alexandria, has had all of the Category; "Quotes" removed as they were too many.... The page is now incomplete for Athanasius was a prolific writer of letters and documents...... Apparently quoting a section without an explanation was no good..... However, to me his quotes were self explanatory..... I was asked to fit them into the history or the rest of the page.... This to me would be unusual as they do not fit..... I have suggested a Category entitled:  "His Writing"..... where word and explanation could be had.... If I begin again, there is no assurance that it will be kept from being deleted..... Even my understanding of an Encyclopaedia was questioned.....   I pointed out I did not begin the Category, only added a little.... My other study is Philosophy and Psychology and have written with Prof Anthony Edwards on pages associated with C.G. Jung....   I want the best for this Article Page: Athanasius.... and am slow to write Synopsis as I think the best is to let the Saint speak for himself...... Some of his writing speak as though they were written yesterday..... He wrote in Greek, Latin and Coptic..... MacOfJesus (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Jordan articles
Category:Jordan articles, 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Verification Request
Hello John. Thanks so much for your advice on my arbitration request here []. I took your advice and placed in on the ANI board, and was immediately accused of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, even thought I provided the link to your exact recommendation. Can you please explain to the editors there that I am not forumshopping and that I only placed the case on the new board per your advice? The original arbitration request has been since removed by "Liz", so it's only on one forum now anyway. Thanks so much, and sorry this is being dragged out.
 * Trinacrialucente, it is considered forum-shopping if an editor starts discussions on the same problem on a variety of noticeboards and talk pages. It's bad because it means that there are several conversations going on in different locations about the same issue. It's best to start discussion at a lower level (talk pages), if unresolved, go to a noticeboard, if unresolved, go to dispute resolution. Arbitration is only for the most serious and intractable disputes, ones that haven't been resolved at lower levels of dispute resolution process. Few cases are accepted by the arbitration committee and you must have solid reasons for wanting ArbCom to weigh in. If your case is accepted, the process takes weeks, if not months, and primarily consists of editors providing evidence against each other, against a certain type of behavior or when certain problematic areas on Wikipedia (like abortion, the Middle East, American politics, etc.) are too divisive to come up with an administration solution. I hope this explains the removal of your case request. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Liz hello, I think there may be a miscommunication here. I completely understand why you removed my initial post/request as it was not the best forum to resolve the dispute.  No problems there whatsoever.  My issue was that I initially put it there, and as you can see was told I would get a "positive result" if I posted instead in the WP:ANI forum, which is why I subsequently moved it there. In other words, I was simply following the recommendation I was given, and not WP:FORUMSHOPPING as another editor accused me of.  Make sense? Once again, no dispute/issues/problems with your actions or decision.  Simply trying to clarify to another editor that is trying to accuse me of WP:FORUMSHOPPING when I was just following sound recommendation from another editor who was kind enough to give it. My "lesson learned" is that should this ever occur in the future (and I SINCERELY hope it does not) I will remove any post on the same subject before following the recommendation of another editor and assume it will be removed by itself without incident.  My apologies for any miscommunications here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I confirm that I did leave such a message on his user talk page,without really looking it over very carefully, which was at least in part my fault, for which I apologize. Also, FWIW, it seems that at least part of the issue involved is the matter of Anglican sex abuse cases. I probably won't be able to do anything here directly until Thursday or so, but I can at least try to gather the sources I can find on it and see what if anything they say, and maybe forward any that are useful to anyone who might ask for them. John Carter (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * PLEASE don'tt apologize for anything. You are not at fault in any way here.  Like I said, MY takeaway/lesson-learned is to ensure I erase any requests/dispute on one board before posting to another.  You gave very sound guidance and this would not at all be an issue, other than the fact that on the ANI board certain editors are saying anything/everything to try and make me look bad (i.e. that I am WP:FORUMSHOPPING even after I stated repeatedly that there are only 2 boards I posted this on; the original which LIZ rightly removed and the subsequent ANI).  If you (or anyone) reads the way the editor in question is slandering me (i.e. saying I am lying when I clearly posted times, dates and occurrences), that I am suffering from paranoia etcTrinacrialucente (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence phase closing
John Carter, this is just a note that Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence phase will be closing in 2 days. If you would like to add any additional evidence or respond to statements made by others, you have until November 4th. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 13:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ping
John, please read my reply here. I would also appreciate it if you would strike your accusation, "You assert that you are an employee of the MHS." I absolutely did not say that, if you had noted the FYI thread from the beginning and looked at the article in question. The "expert" I referred to was another user who is a MHS staffer, who openly discloses it on-wiki, and who does not need WP drama. There is some sincere work being done at the MHS to make their materials more widely available to the public and he is on the cutting edge of these efforts. I don't want to see things get fouled up by an editor who insists on adding weak sources and synthesis to an article that had a scholarly focus. (Full disclosure: I worked as a tour guide for the MHS for one season about 20 years ago when I was between jobs and I am currently volunteering my time there for things like this)   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  04:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And by the way, it's not just me:, .  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  07:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * While you're at it, John Carter (is that John Carter from Mars, BTW? The movie was filmed on the desert west of where I live) could you please weigh in on this  RfC?  Your input would be appreciated.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * John, I am not going to discuss your concerns with my behavior on Wysong's page any further because it will just feed that fire further, and I'd prefer it to cool. But if you want to discuss them here, I am glad to discuss the situation.  You are probably aware of the off-wiki issue I was pinged about today.  But let's just say that I generally can tell the difference between people who are sincerely here for the good of the project and those who are not.  I frequently spot problematic editors (and draw their wrath because I do not acquiesce in the face of their bullying) months before anyone else seems to realize what they are up to.  Examples:,  , ,  and so on. Some of the wrath between myself and Wysong also stems from an earlier issue where I thought she might be a sock of a banned user and I also thought she and Rationalobserver were the same person. I now am pretty sure she and RO are two totally different people, but they both share a dislike of me and in both cases, their wrath erupted when I called them out on sloppy editing.  I still think Wysong is a returned user, but I shall assume she intended a WP:CLEANSTART and drop that particular stick.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  18:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

TAFI talk

 * Hello :


 * You are invited to participate in this discussion at the TAFI talk page regarding improving the automation of project processes and management of the project. Your input is appreciated.

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on

Template_talk:S-rel

 * Please comment at Template_talk:S-rel on how to handle lables for early (pre-1054) bishops-- such as on how we can add people to the discussion. tahc chat 23:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted
Hi John Carter. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

request for help from the WP:ELVIS folks
You are listed at that wikiproject; I'm working with a beginning editor who is trying to get through WP:AFC, and has been since May or so. They are getting frustrated, so I'm pinging some of the people on the Elvis list, to see if I can find a subject-matter-wikipedian to help out with the article in question. Topic is one Larry Geller, who was the hair-dresser-slash-religious-advisor from 1964 to 1967ish and then again during the 1970s. There are probably enough refs to justify a dedicated article, or if not, certainly enough to justify a subsection of an extant Elvis article, I believe. Please see User_talk:Keshakoko1, if you have time and inclination to lend a hand with this. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * p.s. If you are the wrong John Carter, my apologies, since the username actually listed there was slightly different, but given the frequent references on your userpage, I'm guessing you are the same human. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at DRN
You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88 Proposed Decision posted
Hi John Carter, in the open Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Bot automation at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement
<div style="position:relative; margin:0; background-color:#E2E7FF; border:1px solid blue; padding: 1em; color:#082840"> Greetings WikiProject TAFI members!

Over the past two weeks, there has been extensive discussion on introducing bot automation to assist with maintenance of the Today's Articles for Improvement project. A bot has now been approved for trial and will carry out the weekly duties. The bots first run will occur around 00:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC) (midnight on Sunday).

If you have been assisting any of the weekly maintenance tasks, please refrain from doing so this week. The bot needs to be tested and proven it can do the job, and it only gets one chance per week. The tasks will include:
 * Adding the new scheduled article to Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement and removing the entry from Articles for improvement
 * Set up the schedule pages for the new TAFI, except the adding of an image and caption
 * Adding TAFI to the new article for improvement, remove TAFI from last week's article and add Former TAFI to the talk page
 * Notify relevant WikiProjects that the new TAFI is within their scope
 * Send a mass message to everyone on the notification list of the new TAFI selection

Updating the accomplishments and archiving selections is still done manually, along with daily tasks such as adding approved entries to the articles for improvement page. These will become automated in the near future.

We hope the bot proves to serve well, and by carrying out the routine housekeeping tasks we can boost the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the project. thanks you for your service in helping with the weekly tasks in the past, and for your cooperation during this trial period :)

Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • for all project notifications

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Arman
Hi please come to this page.Arman ad60 (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Tennessee
I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but I've created 7 articles on individual, notable Tennessee Walking Horses and I don't know whether the articles should be tagged as belonging to WPTN. I've tried asking others, but they didn't know. All but one of the horses (listed here) were born in Tennessee and most of them lived there all their lives and are buried there. One of the articles, Wilson's Allen, made DYK and should be on the main page within the next 2 days, which is partly why I'm wondering about this. Thanks,  White Arabian Filly  ( Neigh ) 23:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

 * This card was designed by User:Samtar

Season's Greetings!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello John Carter: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Solomon7968 06:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello John Carter: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience t 23:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed
''You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.''

The has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 53, 2015)
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:gold; background-color:white; font color:gray; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 6
Newsletter • January 2016

Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:

What comes next

Some good news: the Wikimedia Foundation has renewed WikiProject X. This means we can continue focusing on making WikiProjects better.

During our first round of work, we created a prototype WikiProject based on two ideas: (1) WikiProjects should clearly present things for people to do, and (2) The content of WikiProjects should be automated as much as possible. We launched pilots, and for the most part it works. But this approach will not work for the long term. While it makes certain aspects of running a WikiProject easier, it makes the maintenance aspects harder.

We are working on a major overhaul that will address these issues. New features will include:
 * Creating WikiProjects by simply filling out a form, choosing which reports you want to generate for your project. This will work with existing bots in addition to the Reports Bot reports. (Of course, you can also have sections curated by humans.)
 * One-click button to join a WikiProject, with optional notifications.
 * Be able to define your WikiProject's scope within the WikiProject itself by listing relevant pages and categories, eliminating the need to tag every talk page with a banner. (You will still be allowed to do that, of course. It just won't be required.)

The end goal is a collaboration tool that can be used by WikiProjects but also by any edit-a-thon or group of people that want to coordinate on improving articles. Though implemented as an extension, the underlying content will be wikitext, meaning that you can continue to use categories, templates, and other features as you normally would.

This will take a lot of work, and we are just getting started. What would you like to see? I invite you to discuss on our talk page.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Google Doodle task force
– Sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Today's articles for improvement