User talk:John Carter/Archives/2012/August

Please comment on Talk:International Olympic Committee
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International Olympic Committee. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method
I know that you've complained about this editor, and have stated that he may need to be taken to WP:ANI. I've also commented on how ridiculous he is. I've very recently had to revert his ridiculousness here. My question is what will it take to finally report this user to ANI for disruptive editing? There's a lot of evidence showing how troubling his edits are. And he was blocked from this site before under a different user name because of the same type of troubling edits, especially for WP:OR and deceptive edit summaries. 176.67.167.252 (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for starting User:John Carter/Pass a Method.


 * For WP:OR issues and deceptive edit summaries, besides what you have witnessed of this editor's behavior, and besides what he has done under his Someone65 account and what he has done recently under his Pass a Method account, one example is the Virginity article, where he was reverted. And besides the examples at Elvis Presley, other examples, which also involve him being reverted, can be seen at Category:Erotic fiction, at Child sexual abuse, Human (which was also discussed), and the discussion of synthesis regarding his edits at Pedophilia. There are obviously a lot more instances like this. His talk page shows some of that.


 * The following are some diffs showing how he interacts with users while in a content dispute with them -- accusing them of vandalism and then tagging their talk page with warning templates about vandalism, other disruptive editing or edit warring:


 * (April)


 * (June 16)


 * (still June 16; editor's response to his template)


 * (June 17)


 * (June 19)


 * (June 26 and 27)


 * (July 4) 176.67.167.252 (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And of course I could add some of the self-serving snarkiness I have received from this editor as well. I have very serious questions exactly where to go with this situation, but I very definitely think that it will have to go somewhere, probably sooner than later, unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * John, it may appear that some editors are complaining about me but this is mainly because i enjoy editing controversial articles. In fact, sometimes i check out certain noticeboards just to check what controversies are going on. However dont mistake all the fuss for incompetence or "trolling" which is what your recent comment on my talk page suggests. I dont claim to be a fault-free editor. In fact i found myself corected numerous times, hence in my numerous disputes often make concessions or admissions half-way through a dialogue. Please keep that in mind in your future posts about me. Pass a Method   talk  22:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And the complaints also indicate that you edit in an arrogant, disruptive, condescending, and basically incompetent way. In fact, this is perhaps the first time I have seen any remotely resembling humility out of you. And, honestly, it is not my opinion which will really matter. Should the history of disruptive editing continue, I will definitely be more than willing to bring behavioral problems to either ANI or ArbCom for their independent decision. And, of course, on that basis, I will be collecting the information which might be required in that presentation. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Has there ever been a RfC/U regarding PAM? If not, that might be the next logical step. Lady  of  Shalott  00:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * John, sorry for any inconvenience this past week. I hope we can start from a new page as of today. Pass a Method   talk  00:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "the next logical step" Hell yeah!!! Ahem. I think that would be a prudent course of action suggested by the circumstances of the case at hand. Support. – Lionel (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the mass religion/LGBT title changes. When was the last time someone pissed off half of WPLGBT and WPChristianity? In spite of the carnage he's caused, he should get a barnstar for improving inter-wikiproject relations, hahaha. – Lionel (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

YGM
&mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding parshas
Thanks, John, for your kind note. I appreciate it. Be well. -- Dauster (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gulf War
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gulf War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of fixed crossings of the Hudson River
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of fixed crossings of the Hudson River. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of castles in Belgium
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of castles in Belgium. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Refuest for Editor monitoring
Is it possible that Wikipedia Editor would monitor the Talk page on Nichiren article and assist in making the process of improving the article possible. I intend to make some changes to the article in the coming few days. It seems that a professional advise is needed to guide both editors engaged in the developing situation to make the outcome more productive (than what it is now on that Talk page).SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as WP:Dispute resolution goes, if two (and only two) editors are going at it, you may request a WP:Third opinion aka "3O" to help strike a balance or voice an opinion. There are many 3O req watchers; they are just editors like us, but they try extra hard to evaluate a situation, assuming good faith, based on policy and guideline. There's sometimes a backlog, so it can take time to get a response. --Lexein (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to WP:NOT
Hi John, regarding your comments at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not: i.e.:


 * "I have requested input on this proposal at the geopolitical, ethnic, and religious diputes noticeboard and at the village pump for policy. With any luck, we might be seeing responses shortly. If there is not a clear consensus from such discussion, of course, it would always be possible to also file a request for comments as per WP:RFC. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)"

and then your posting requests at Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts and Village pump (policy), i.e.


 * "There is currently discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not regarding a proposed addition to that policy page. As topics of this nature tend to spawn some of the most heated and contested discussions we have, any and all informed, neutral opinions are more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)"

Now that you are arbitrarily globalizing this debate when you don't get your way, first by taking the discussion from Talk:Chayei Sarah to the WP:NOT forum and now expanding and taking it even further by bringing it to WP:CCN and WP:VPP, threatening to go as far as WP:RFC to waste even more time in these discussions that have consistently NOT gone your way. Your moves are obvious violations of WP:POINT and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and one wonders how far you will go just to get your way... At any rate, now that you have done this, for the sake of fairness as you should have done, I have notified four major religion Wiki Projects (Christianity; Islam; Hindusim; Buddhism) and four major secular Wiki Projects (Atheism; Science; Philosophy; History) so that hopefully they can be treated equally and draw equal responses from concerned Wikipedians in a WP:NPOV fashion. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IZAK, I am actually very much surprised that you had made an effort to conduct anything other than Judaism, considering that is your almost sole interest, and always has been. I realize that you are possibly constitutionally incapable of behaving in an acceptable way. I had contacted the noticeboard because the editors there have had a history of dealing with controversial topics, and their input would be useful. I also note your own bias in the above. There seemingly was consensus among those who are not so blinded by their own POV that their input is not particularly useful, that is to say, among those other than you and Bus stop. It was only I think when you once again used one of your favorite tactics, which is adding dubiously relevant walls of text that rarely if ever address matters of substance, that others started saying that the discussion was too long to read. Also, clearly, this is a policy matter, so it made sense to contact policy pages as well. I also notice how once again you seem to be attempting to reformat reality to suit your own purposes, which seems to be a bit of a habit of yours. When I started the discussion, I was basically requesting clarification and amendment to policy, which does not necessarily require input from involved editors. Minor changes to policy, which is what the request seems to be according to the input of those editor who first took page, and are presumably those who most frequent the policy pages and know them best, do not necessarily require asking for input from people who do not deal with policy often. I am however very much surprised that you thought that any input from anyone other than yourself and Bus stop, who seems to follow you around on such matters. It is a welcome change on your part, and I sincerely hope that it indicates a welcome change in your own conduct for the better. John Carter (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White people
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:White people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI comments
You'd have to go to the Help Desk. Whoever asked the question would be the one to answer. I was merely trying to make sure there was a helpful answer, which there was not before I got involved.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

One more cleaned up
FYI, on my way out, I was touching up unfinished items, so cleaned up one more article in the Josephus/Tacitus genre, namely Historicity of Jesus. Now Ministry of Jesus, Chronology of Jesus and this make a trio which establishes the timelines, sources etc. and rely on the Josephus page. But in its own right, you may be interested in the Pauline section of Historicity of Jesus page - I came across a few interesting new things as I researched that... On a separate note, as I touched up Farewell Discourse, I eventually figured out what it was about...

Anyway if you manage to watch those historicity pages as I slow down that will be great. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of African-American firsts
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of African-American firsts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nichiren
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nichiren. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Mongols and Russian encyclopaedists
We're having a little bit of a drive this week at User talk:Drmies. So far we have: See the talk page for more. Uncle G (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sagaan Ubgen
 * Yellow shamanism · Yellow shaman
 * Dayan Deerh
 * ongon
 * Sergei Aleksandrovich Tokarev

Please comment on Talk:Eilat
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Eilat. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Portal:New England
Hey there John! I've recently listed P:NEWENG at FPOC, and I noticed your name on [Template:PortalReviewVolunteers/List|this list]], and (as such) would like to kindly ask that, if your schedule permits, you could review Portal:New England at its FPOC. I'm not asking for a rubber-stamp of anything like that; as my first piece of potentially-audited work, I want to really do a job and get it right. Thank you. Achowat (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Doubt
Hello, John. I saw that you added the WikiProject African diaspora tag to Rui Barbosa and José Bonifácio de Andrada. According to this wikiproject, its goal "to improve all articles related to the cultural contributions of people of African descent all over the world. The African diaspora is the story of how Africans, though scattered and dispersed, managed to preserve cultural traditions while, at the same time, reinventing their identities in places outside Africa". Neither Barbosa nor Bonifácio had African ancestors. Then why did you add those tags? --Lecen (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the tagging for that WikiProject I've been engaged in recently is based on the subjects having separate articles in the Africana encyclopedia by Appiah and Gates. According to the summary of the Barbosa article in that encyclopedia, he was a prominent abolitionist, who ultimately destroyed many of the government's records of the slave trade. Regarding de Andrada, he is listed in the summary of his article in the first edition as being an early advocate of the abolition of the slave trade and the gradual emancipation of slaves. Now, I acknowledge the first edition, which I'm using now, doesn't have separate article bibliographies, which is unfortunate. I haven't checked the second edition, which is at a more remote location. But at least the two articles in question, as opposed to some others, like on smaller African ethnic groups, are basically about as long as some of our own developed lead sections. I also more or less raised a question on the project's talk page about such tagging some time ago, and got no response that I could see, so I acted boldly. You are of course free to remove them, but eventually I hope to get together lists of substantial articles in relevant reference books for several projects, and doing tagging for them based on those articles. I've started doing much the same for WikiProject Religion recently as well. It may not be the best way to go, but for some of the bios of some Caribbean figures in that work, I have a feeling that maybe there might be more editors perhaps interested in developing content based on "African diaspora" status than on the nation or territory itself. The list of articles on the diaspora, FWIW, can be found at User:John Carter/Africa articles, in the African diaspora section. You're free to remove the tags, and I doubt honestly I would notice it, but I think, at least maybe, getting the involvement of editors from that project, and maybe from sources they would be most interested and likely to use, might help develop the content. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That was not what I asked. According to WikiProject African diaspora, its goal is to improve articles about people who have African blood in their veins, not on articles about slavery, abolitionists, abolitionism, etc, etc... Thus, it doesn't make sense to add Bonifácio nor Barbosa, unless the wikiproject changes its scope to encopass other subjects, such as abolitionism. --Lecen (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I indicated why I added the tag. I'm sorry you apparently don't find the reasoning acceptable. I think we might have different understandings of the clause "all articles related to the cultural contributions of people of African descent all over the world", which would at least to my eyes relate to matters directly and significantly related to black slavery, which slavery related subjects might be. I actually don't see any clear indicator that on the page that it directly and necessarily relates only to articles about people with African blood in their veins, but I could be wrong. And, honestly, I would think that articles appearing in a reference book about the African diaspora, which this source basically is, would pretty much inherently relate to the African diaspora project. If you did not find a specific response to the specific question you asked, my apologies. However, I do note that the project has been rather inactive of late, and it might be reasonable to change the stated scope to rather clearly indicate the true scope of the project, which it currently lacks. Most projects have some sort of indicator as to what sorts of categories they deal with, which this project doesn't. I am therefore going to propose on the talk page now that there be some clearer definition of its scope. Rationally, I think it would probably be basically identical to the scope of directly related reference works, and will say as much. You are of course free to dispute that change on the project talk page, if you see fit. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Shamanism
Hi John, thanks for your notes on my talk page. I responded, but it's in the middle of a long thread so I'll repeat it here: I could use a bit of help expanding Sagaan Ubgen, and Mongolian shamanism, which should be a larger overview article, could benefit from some professional help as well. Thanks for whatever you can do! Drmies (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have email from me related to this topic. :) Lady  of  Shalott  02:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nichiren Buddhism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nichiren Buddhism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Finding some sources
Hello, I noticed that it says on WikiProject Alaska you have access to many Alaskan magazines. So I was wondering if you could look for an article in one of them that has to do with Alaska Airlines ending flights to Russia in September 1998. You can use this as a guide for what to look for. Hope you can find something. Thanks, Comp dude 123 17:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you see my message? Would really appreciate your help with this.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 22:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! &mdash;Comp dude 123 23:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Another DeknMike edit in topic-banned area
Hi John, please be aware of this. I'm going to be taking off soon but I thought you should be aware of it. 16:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He self-reverted, so no problem I guess.   16:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter
I see you got it out OK--but feel free to keep me "on call" if you need me. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Burma
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Burma. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
and a 3rd one Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Axis occupation of Vojvodina
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Axis occupation of Vojvodina. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I find this wierd...
I don't know, maybe I'm straining my eyeballs...

But doesn't it seem weird how all of these users use the same term:

At, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:4


 * Keep per IZAK. Philosophers and Theologians from both the Christian and Jewish traditions have commented extensively verse by verse on the Pentateuch. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per IZAK.--Yoavd (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per IZAK, Jclemens, et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:5


 * Keep per IZAK et al. This issue appears to have been dealt with in previous AfDs.75.150.187.201 (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per IZAK --Yoavd (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As if IZAK is some kind of authoritative voice for the Jewish wiki-community. It just seems strange... But maybe it's nothing and I'm just being overtly sensitive. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  16:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I just happened to catch this mention here and I agree with you. Something strange here. Added my delete to these articles. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * To Jason, you are twisting hard to come up with stories because in any AfD or CfD it is very often standard practice, in fact it's highly advisable, when casting a vote at an AfD to state "per XYX" when "XYZ" cites more comprehensive reasons and policies for either "Keep" or "Delete" or whatever the case may be. Many Judaic editors keep track of AfDs and CfDs posted at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism and sometimes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Your statement that "As if IZAK is some kind of authoritative voice for the Jewish wiki-community" is a slur if not an outright violation of WP:NPA against me, and WP:AGF for no good reason against those users who wish to vote using the long-standing "per XYZ" method. I do not speak for anyone on WP and I have never claimed to speak for anyone on WP, so stop it with coming up with uncalled for insults. I cannot make you or John or anyone like me, but by mocking me, you do yourself no favors either. IZAK (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is my observation, faulty at best. I'm not making any accusations and I apologize if I've offended you or your fellow wikians. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  22:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IZAK, I think it might be advisable if you were to read WP:STALK. Also, I find it extremely amusing that you seem to find someone statement that you seem to be an authoritative voice, which most people would find a compliment, to be some form of personal attack. In fact, it is virtually impossible for me to believe that anyone making such a statement would be adhering to WP:AGF themselves, as they are clearly taking words for being something other than they are. Such rather paranoic behavior certainly does you no favors either. Also, IZAK, I would very much request you make these rather remarkable rushes to judgment regarding others somewhere else? Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, however he wasn't complimenting me, that's for sure. This concerns me as he mentioned my name, and if he has a problem with me he can take it up with me directly, or at least let me know he has concerns about me that I can respond to. Calling me "paranoic" also doesn't help, if you know what I mean, it sets a bad example as others will try to mimic or one up you. IZAK (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IZAK, I am sorry that you seem to have missed the very obvious hint to drop this conversation. I am sure that you can understand continuing to belabor a point on the talk page of an editor who had he thought clearly asked that you take the conversation elsewhere not only sets a bad example, but could also perhaps be taken as an indication of that editor's incapacity or unwillingness to act in accord with the wishes of others. I believe that closes this conversation. Thank you for adhering to my wishes to drop this subject. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference
I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Focus on the Family
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Focus on the Family. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Does...
this WP:UP apply as a violation, if you post content on your wp:User pages that advocates a wikipage that was deleted by consensus? &mdash; Jasonasosa  23:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was kinda wondering what was going on regarding this topic, as I've seen some recent activity about it on my watchlist that I didn't look into. I am not entirely sure of what you are talking about, as you didn't specifically indicate it, of course, but I think I might be able to make a pretty good guess. The short answer is "probably not," although that depends on the specific nature of the material being posted in userspace. Users can and frequently do use userspace to develop articles, and one might reasonably say that an article which was deleted for lack of notability could be moved to userspace or reproduced there until and unless notability is clearly established. However, if the material is more specifically of a clearly promotional nature, that might be another matter entirely. WP:TE might apply to misusing other non-userspace wikipedia pages for promotion as well. If the disruption is clear and obvious, WP:DE also might apply. If it advocates in a clear way a subject then the place to go is probably [{WP:ANI]]. If one were to do that, looking over the longterm edit history of the editor involved might be useful too, particularly if it were to reveal a possible bias or POV. I'm working my way through a reference source today, and might not be able to get to it until tomorrow, but I will look some of what I think you're talking about then. If you see anything that you think merits posting at ANI before then, of course, you are free to do so. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (shrugs) :/ I don't know. I guess we will see how far it goes... It's like a Whac-A-Mole... it keeps popping up, it never dies and you can't win. lol. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  23:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If...
you saw a message like this:

"Could you help improve the Genesis 1:3; Genesis 1:4 and Genesis 1:5 articles to the same level as the Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 articles? Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:5 for the discussions."

Would this be considered some kind of back-door canvasing, straight-up canvasing, or not all? Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:5 has a warning message that heads the page for participants to not canvass. I'd be interested on your take of the above comment that I saw when passing around wiki. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  12:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw that myself. It probably has to be counted as acceptable, and it isn't really canvassing as per the definition. We have to assume good faith, and it is not unheard of for individuals to contact editors who have helped develop one article to help develop related articles, or articles on similar subjects. Given the phrasing, we are more or less obligated to assume that is what the editor was doing. Particularly for individuals who have a pronounced degree of experience with a subject and those who edit it, one could almost think it was expected. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insight.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  14:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

German language material at AE
Hello John. Regarding your comment about German language material. What in particular needs looking at? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Skapperod includes a short quote in his "Re: Misrepresentation of sources" comment, in the "Comparison of VM's allegation..." box, in response to a longer italicized quote in VM's "Illustrative example of Skapperod's misrepresentations" section. They probably aren't that important, but both of them seem to consider it important enough, and I'm not myself sure my own German is such that I can be 100% sure regarding what the quotes translate to in English. John Carter (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, if I may interject here. Misrepresentation of sources can happen by accident. You may also want to check the "Abuse of a source by Skapperod which prompted this exchange" section, I think it is quite informative. But the problem here is that the editors involved cannot talk to one another and resolve it. Both assume bad faith, neither is a paragon of virtue in their behavior. At the same time, they both contribute to the area, improving content, and they actually need one another. They represent different POVs, and banning one would make the content POVed; banning both would mean we (Wikipedia) gets no content. What we need to do is a solution that forces them to be civil and AGF towards one another. Now, how to arrive at that... I suggested a group 1RR at Ed's page, to deal with reverting and tag teaming. Alternatively or additionally, we could put the affected articles at general 1RR. This should minimize the damages, but civility... is difficult. Mentorship, perhaps? I can try to influence VM, but who would try to mentor Skapperod? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Beastiality and female genital mutilation as sexual assault?
Hi. Is it appropriate that these be classified as sexual assault, in light of how reliable sources define sexual assault? I say no, except for the cases where female genital mutilation is carried out against a female's will. 109.123.115.21 (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But thinking over female genital mutilation again, I can't see how it is sexual assault unless it is performed with sexual/psychological gratification in mind or is defined that way simply because it's the sex organs that are being mutilated. In other words: It is assualt, but the people performing the procedures are not getting sexual/psychological gratification from it; if some do at all, I wouldn't say that it's a usual case. 109.123.115.21 (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking no. I am having some problems finding specific definitions of sexual assault unfortunately. The closest thing I can find in a reliable reference source is "Sexual assault and rape are usually classified as criminal sexual conduct and are codified in a set of decreasing degrees of severity—first degree being the most serious and carrying the highest penalty. First-degree criminal sexual conduct involves the forced sexual penetration of someone else that involves additional injury and harm. The victims are defined not only as any single person, but also as belonging to one of the categories on a list of specially defined victims that includes children, household members, friends (date rape), and incapacitated people. The perpetrators occupy specific relations of trust to the victims, such as parents, teachers, or relatives, and use weapons, help from others, drugs, or threats. Lesser degrees of sexual assault and rape are defined either by the lack of a special relation of trust between perpetrator and victim or by a lesser degree of violence, coercion, and injury. All rape is serious and is understood by many to be a crime of vengeance and rage rather than a crime of sex." from the "Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender: Culture Society History" on the Highbeam Research site. Bestiality is mentioned in the same article, but only as a form of illegal sexual activity or sex crimes. Clitoridectomy is apparently the more standard term for "female genital mutilation", and it appears in several reference works, but none of them cast it in a criminal light, although some describe it as a part of a ritual act. John Carter (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * May I interject?
 * According to the: Oxford Dictionary, the definition of assault is:


 * noun
 * 1. a physical attack:
 * sexual assaults
 * Law an act, criminal or tortious, that threatens physical harm to a person, whether or not actual harm is done
 * 2. a concerted attempt to do something demanding:


 * Whether or not mutilation of sexual organs is invited, welcomed, or traditional, it is still considered a physical assault if carried out by someone other than oneself. However, it is really defined by the law of the country, so if sexual organ mutilation is traditional custom, the parties involved may not be charged with assault of any sort. Though customs like this are rare, wiki presents the most widely accept view that performing sexual mutilation on someone else (on the organs or psychologically) is a sexual assault.
 * Bestiality is a sexual assault on animals, whether consensual or not, and is unlawful in most 1st and 2nd world countries no matter how you look at it.
 * So I consent that both topics are appropriate in article.
 * Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  19:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, actually, there is a similar encyclopedia definition in the lead of the article. Unfortunately, per the definition in the extant lead of sexual assault, it refers only to "persons," and specifically only men, women, and children, not animals. I'm not sure if animals qualify as "persons" under the law, but I tend to doubt they do in most cases. If it is to be included, the lead should probably be adjusted to specifically include animals.
 * The broader idea of "sex crimes" is currently a redirect to Sex and the law, not sexual assault. "sex with animals" is listed as a common sex crime in that article, but I don't see clitoridectomy/female genital mutilation specifically mentioned. This is not to say that clitoridectomy or female genital mutilation is not significant. It's one of the 3000 or so articles in the EoR, and when I get done with finding where if anywhere all the articles from the fricking lists are here that one is probably one of the first ones with which I will deal, given its poor shape. But with the distinction between "sex crime" and "sexual assault" we have, I think we are going to have to make sure all items are put in the right place. The fact of it being a relatively common procedure historically, particularly in the Muslim world, raises questions as to whethr it should be called an "assault", considering that seems to be comparatively only a recent classification in some parts of the world. Not saying I like it at all, I think it's weird at best, but it does seem to be fairly commonly practiced historically, and apparently only recently counted as a form of assault. So far as I can see from the reference sources, anyway. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This does come down to law in the definition of assault. So, mutilation of sex organs in the Muslim world if accepted in their law, like Sharia law, then it would be out of wp:scope of this article.
 * In regards to the intro, perhaps it is in minor violation of WP:NPOV due to the fact that the source of the lede is: from All about Female Offenders, which doesn't leave the opportunity to widen the wp:scope of the article in the full context of the word Sexual assault.
 * Thus, it may be biased by the lede statement: "Although sexual assaults most frequently are by a man on a woman". Which narrows the wp:scope to exclude sexual assault on men by men which may be prevalent in prison systems or isolated male centres, as well as the exclusion of bestiality.
 * Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  20:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a point. The one reference source I could find on Highbeam, quoted above, is the Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender, which I'm assuming is considered reliable for the subject of "sex" broadly defined. That article does mention bestiality in passing, but in a section outside of the material about "sexual assault." Regarding the source of the lede, that's a really good point there. Getting some sort of definition from a legal dictionary would be a great idea, but finding which are the most authoritative and current, and for which countries, might be a problem. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am in strong favor of a lede revision. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  20:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * John Carter, as for clitoridectomy "apparently [being] the more standard term for 'female genital mutilation'," do you mean that the procedures almost always involve the removal of the clitoris? I ask considering that even though it is true that the procedures do almost always involve the removal of the clitoris (the clitoral glans, hood, and some of the clitoris's other nerves, to be exact), the Female genital mutilation article states "female genital mutilation" has "become the dominant term within the international community and in medical literature."


 * Jasonasosa, you say, "Whether or not mutilation of sexual organs is invited, welcomed, or traditional, it is still considered a physical assault if carried out by someone other than oneself." But I remind you that we're talking about sexual assaults. Not just assaults, and consent has everything to do with it. Nothing, by law at least, can be considered a sexual assault if one invites/welcomes it on his or herself and continues to invite/welcome it throughout the encounter, unless the person is too young to consent or mentally incapacitated (meaning mentally challenged to the point where the consent is invalid or drunk/drugged up to the point where the consent is invalid). Also, sexual assaults most frequently are by a man on a woman; rape, including statutory rape, other forced sexual contact and child sexual abuse are mostly committed by men, which is well-documented in academic sources. It's not POV, even if the lead needs a better initial source.


 * I'm against beastiality being in the article because I'm certain that it is not defined as sexual assault by any law. It is considered a sex crime, as we know, but "sexual assault" is reserved for humans. It would be like including beastiality in the Rape article. However, there are probably reliable sources out there that refer to beastiality as a sexual assualt on animals, even though it's not defined as such by any law. And if you search under the term "zoophilia," which is what "beastiality" redirects to, or "zoosexual," you may find a lot more sources in that regard. The Zoophilia article also addresses the ethics of humans engaging in sexual activity with non-human animals and whether or not the animals can consent to the activity. If any reliable sources define zoophilia as a sexual assault, I am a tad bit open to it being mentioned in the article. But given that it's not usually included in the definition of sexual assault, I don't feel that there should be a section on it. That would be WP:UNDUE WEIGHT.


 * As for expanding the Clitoridectomy article, I feel that it should be redirected to the Female genital mutilation article and include the text from the Clitoridectomy article there, if it isn't there already. I'm in favor of a redirect, because, as I noted higher, female genital mutilation almost always involves the removal of the clitoris, and the Female genital mutilation article deals with that in depth. 109.123.115.222 (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've dropped messages at both the WikiProjects Law and Sexuality asking for clarification. So far as I can tell, "assault" legally at least strongly implies, if not in fact demands, that the "victim" have a clear and knowable internal "will" or feeling regarding the matter, and I am unaware of any legal system anywhere which has said they do, although I might be wrong. I myself would favor using the clitoridectomy article to refer to the procedures directly, and maybe use f.g.m. in the sense of this quote from the Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender: Culture Society History article on female genital mutilation: "In the latter half of the twentieth century, the term female genital mutilation or FGM was popularized to draw attention to the severity of some forms of the practices as well as the international opposition to all forms, and to stimulate the movement for change." Basically, the latter term seems to be more used for the recent social/political controversy about the procedures, and from the sources I can see the existing controversy is sufficiently notable for a separate article, discussing the various social, political, and even religious "pros and cons" that have been put forward on the subject. But the term does itself seem to have been more or less used as an intentionally emotionally loaded "buzzword" for a fairly clear and definite social protest, and it seems to me from what I can see to be notable enough for an article on the recent discussion regarding the practice. And, honestly, I think a separate spinout article on the religious/cultural usages and factors of the practice might be notable enough for a separate article as well, based on the material in the Encyclopedia of Religion article. I want to stress that I'm not convinced of any of these points myself, but they are the first impressions I get from the material I've quickly looked over. John Carter (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Byrne
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Byrne. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!
I thought this was a great idea when I saw it. It could be a great way to get more participation at the WikiProjects! Happy editing! Amadscientist (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Family Research Council
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Family Research Council. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Settlement RFC
Hello John. Would you be willing to participate with two other admins in closing an RFC on the inclusion/exclusion of content related to the status of Israeli settlements under international law in the articles on each settlement? Moonriddengirl has already agreed, but thats it so far. My idea (which so far has tepid support from others) would be something similar to the RFC on images of Muhammad. See the discussion here for more details. Thanks,  nableezy  - 18:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guyana
You are listed as a member at WikiProject Guyana. If you would like to continue, we would be delighted to have your contributions, but if you would like to withdraw, we can understand that, too. Please let me know your wishes. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

OhC
John, thanks for the archiving change on his talk page. I'm hoping to persuade him back, but I've no idea what his attitude to this might be. Tony  (talk)  08:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN needs your help!
Hey there John Carter, I noticed you've listed yourself as a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard but you haven't been very active there lately - I was hoping if you had some spare time if you could take a look there and offer some assistance. Thanks again for your help :-) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 11:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:John Carter/Africa articles
Not sure if you noticed but I've started a few from this list today. You;ve done very well finding missing notable people of African origin from the Americas too, of course though just a tiny glimmer of what is missing.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If it helps at all, as the page says, all the articles on that page are included in one of the two editions of the Africana encyclopedia edited by Appiah and Gates, so that can be used as one of the reference sources if you can find online access to it. Unfortunately, it doesn't include individual bibliographies. They all can, as per the others, be tagged as "Top" importance for WikiProject Africa, and also for any relevant subprojects. When and if I actually finish this first book, I'm hoping to go on to the individual encyclopedias of individual countries, historical eras, and such. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This? Unfortunately I can't.. Those generalized articles look like they could be quite valuable.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rape in Northeast India
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rape in Northeast India. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Jakob Ammann article
Hi, not sure if this is the correct place to ask for some input about an edit war on Jakob Ammann page. Would appreciate some input there. Thanks!Mikeatnip (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Whatever sources you have access to may be dropped to me by e-mail atnips at the famous gm ...com. We are actually in the early stages of writing a short biography on Ammann with the new research on him in the last 20 years. I have contact with Hanspeter Jecker in Switzerland who is heading up research there. I have wished to have access to JSTOR in the past, but dont qualify. You are not obligated to look for anything, but if you are not busy resolving any more edit wars, you are welcome to pass the time forwarding me pertinent information. :-) Mikeatnip (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, sorry to bother you again, but that article was just reverted again. Mikeatnip (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure how to proceed on this article. It keeps getting reverted to the stub that it was. I dont feel like trying to argue through every point that I added, especially when the added info is cited from academic sources. Not sure how to proceed. Any suggestions? The issue now is supposedly the picture, which I dont think is the underlying issue or the whole thing would not keep getting reverted. Thanks!Mikeatnip (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Stubborn people
I really think it would be better to disengage with I.h.; If he cannot support his arguments, others will deal with them. To the extent he gives  long and repetitive arguments, answering in kind  isn't helpful. My practice is that after 2 or at most 3 exchanges, I just stop and let whatever happens happen. Quite possible G Title is unsupportable as a separate article but I would have deferred bringing the AfD until the del rel had closed, and a few weeks later. I have had many experiences with  editors making multiple unsatisfactory articles, and, tempting though it is to deal with them at once, I have learned it is not usually a good idea. Even when it's large scale promotion, I go slowly at first.  DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I pretty much have already. And, actually, I think I brought the AfD before the DR was even proposed. That nomination was brought when I saw that, at the time, discussion of it was about half of his talk page, and I was curious why, and then saw why. But, on a side note, if you are interested in taking part, the Menawiki I mentioned in the comments regarding possible notability is a discussion being conducted about why there are so few English wikipedia articles about the Middle East and North Africa, conducted by the American University of Sharjah and Oxford, at this page. Given your experience, I think you would be a very valuable contributor, if you saw fit to do so. John Carter (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I could not get that link to work; but I found  its page on meta, and the project site at Oxford. That project is new to me,  but I knew about what seems a   complementary project on use of oral citations, because there was a talk on it at Wikimania.  I assume thetwo projects know about each other. (my background for this is just some UG work on Folklore, from the POV of anthropology)  DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I come off like an ass sometimes, even with you DGG, but I kinda got ticked off after a point with I.h. I had to walk away from the subject and cool down, because his arguments are like a dog chasing his tail. Anyway, no hard feelings DGG?  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  06:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tenedos
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tenedos. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)