User talk:John Carter/Archives/2014/December

RfC
Hello! Where you still intending to make a RfC on the succession boxes for the popes during the Western Schism? I don't have the time to figure out how it works right now. However, I am still willing to explain my point. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, User:Asthavasu, although I am not really that sure what I did to get such thanks in this case. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Co-op: Pre-pilot discussion for mentors
Hey John. I've posted some initial information and discussions points about the space for mentors here. Give it a read, ask questions on what's not clear, and feel free to add suggestions to the topics I've brought up about mentoring so far. I just pinged a bunch of people at once for this; I understand that sometimes it doesn't go through, so I wanted to make sure you were aware. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Lindsay Jones
Thanks for bringing this source to our attention. Awesome! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally indentifiable information
John: I'm certain your recent ArbCom post about me was well-intentioned, but please do not ever discuss personally identifiable information about me again. I have reverted your edit, and requested oversight (suppression.) Thank you. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I asked you to not discuss my personally identifiable information, not as a matter of WP, policy, but personally. The fact that you are pushing the issue concerns me greatly. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I find your second post here nothing less than ridiculous and a rather visible lie, considering that you also indicated that you were seeking oversight, which I cannot do and which is only done when there is a clear violation of policy. The fact that you are seeking to try to continue to insist that, despite policies permitting this, you as an individual have the right to ask, or demand, of others that they do not do what policies and guidelines permit in the reasonable discussion of behavior patterns concerns me even more greatly. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.


 * We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
 * In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
 * 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. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure 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. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Your June/2014 EotW Nomination
If you recall we agreed it was a good idea to put a hold on a nomination that you made. Since time has passed and feathers are no longer ruffled, I would like to remove the hold and put the editor in the "Q" to get the Award. OK w/ you?? ```Buster Seven   Talk  20:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Thanks for keeping up with things better than I do. John Carter (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ ```Buster Seven   Talk  16:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Reviewed edits
Thanks for mentioning this on the talk page. Given that there weren't any questions from the arbs during the evidence or workshop phases and that some are wrapping up their terms, we'll see if they are open to considering anything new. Perhaps there is no remedy for intransigent advocacy, but at least the matter was raised, however unskillfully by me at this point.

I agreed with your point that databank searches haven't turned up much regarding Landmark, however there is certainly enough available in reliable sources, likely including those which you likely were able to access, to construct a well-sourced article. The problem is compounded by the dozen or so names under which Landmark has operated, and scholars most frequently do treat them as a single phenomenon. I agree with your hope that at some point a proposal to merge Erhard Seminars Training, Werner Erhard and Associates, etc. into the Landmark article is re-floated. Very few sources treat the previous iterations in separate articles or as anything more than as part of the history of Landmark (or vice versa, focusing on the basis in est with Landmark Worldwide being the current nameplate of est). Unless more independent eyes come to bear, however, I fear the same editors will argue Landmark's promotional position that the current company has little to do with est, etc. and the articles shouldn't mix content. In social sciences, at least, much publication by established scholars still takes place in book/printed format (anthologies, festschriften, conference proceedings and similar thematic collections), limited-distribution journals, etc., many of which do not make it into online databanks. Certainly the material is not overwhelming in volume, but better than we have for many NRMs, therapies and other subjects. Even some of the sources currently cited in the article contain a much broader view than the article presents (and in some cases the more rounded information was in the article before being hacked down to one or two cherry-picked factoids not at odds with the Landmark PoV).

The idea of supervised edits might well address the problem of major reverts of sourced material. Whether it would stumble in the face of incremental blanking behavior that has taken place under the guise of "improvement", synthetic "balance" and "consensus", but could certainly be worth a try to avoid allowing the status quo to continue. Thank you again for suggesting a possible alternative. &bull; Astynax talk 05:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason, it appears that mandated review is no longer an available option. &bull; Astynax talk 17:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are almost certainly many more sources than I could find in my quick review which I mentioned. I think that there are probably some newspaper articles, perhaps about specific legal cases and maybe with statements by court experts, which would probably qualify for consideration. And, yes, regardless of the outcome, shortly after the arb ends I intend to the start discussion about how to merge the various names that have been used for the Forum over time, and maybe spinning out some separate content on related topics. The best thing to do would probably be to start a subpage of the article listing the available sources so that everyone who takes part in that eventual discussion will be able to quickly review that list and see what can reasonably be done based on it. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Starting a page to list references is a fine idea. I have gathered some that would be appropriate. You are correct that there are also significant, in-depth newspaper and magazine articles that are relevant, and which mysteriously are ignored in the article. &bull; Astynax talk 18:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It would very much be possible to edit Talk:Landmark Worldwide/to do in the "other" section to list the sources available, and I honestly think that even if parties are banned from the topic, which to my eyes doesn't seem really likely now but who knows, it might be possible to allow the ban to not include adding sources to that list for a short time. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added to that what I have handy in my notes. I know there are others out there that could be added. &bull; Astynax talk 01:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can and will check the various databanks available to me. Unfortunately, a lot of them are only magazine and newspaper searches, but some might be valuable. I seem to remember that Jayen466 added a link to at least one databank to the NRM project page at some point too.
 * I also have recently downloaded to my computer the entire freaking content of the Guide to Reference website, for use in the Bibliography of encyclopedias and a similar list of Bibliography of reference works I intend to develop, and it looks to have quite a few databanks of all sorts included in it. I can check some of them that are available without subscription for whatever they might have as well. John Carter (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project
Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Archiving question
Can a blocked editor create an archive page? NE Ent 20:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good question. I think, according to H:ARC, an editor who is still allowed to edit his user talk page can add some details to set up automatic archiving, which tends to create the required pages automatically. Admittedly, that is purely theoretical on my part, but I don't remember creating any archive pages when I first set this page for archiving and it seems to be done anyway. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Another Sheehy fan-- have you considered a grant?
Re: Sheehy, Eugene P., ed. (1986). Guide to Reference Books (Tenth ed.). Chicago and London: American Library Association. ISBN 978-0-8389-0390-2.

Also a big Sheehy fan here! The 1986 edition gives you an exhaustive overview on how print reference was conducted before the days of the Internet. Have you considered looking into whether it might be possible to make arrangements for moving this work into the public domain on WikiSource, and applying for a grant? --Djembayz (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually haven't checked with the ALA, but I assume it would probably include a lot of information owned by others which might make it problematic. I know the older 6th edition of the Guide to Reference is available at archive.org, and might well download it and add material unique to it on completion of transfer of data from the existing online ALA guide to reference. Regarding a grant, I don't think that this is necessarily the kind of thing that grants are conducted for, by either the WMF or others, but I don't know much about that field myself. John Carter (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Arguments
I wish I was as eloquent as you are in presenting your arguments as you did at ANI. I still haven't found a great way to integrate and resolve the dedicated "controversy" section of the Shooting of Michael Brown article in such a simple way. Other editors have deconstructed some of the issues, but misrepresentation of original commentary (filtered through biased sources) is an issue. This is actually used in the article under "controversy":

I think of this as "Telephone" with sources. New York Times -> Unnamed Justice Department officials -> Holder. Taking out the NYT and the "middlemen" and going to Holder who is perfectly capable of announcing his own displeasure in a statement would be a start. But... is it really relevant or "controversial" - its just like WP:DIRT to me. And that goes for both parties. Also on a loosely related note I removed this as an extreme BLP issue, despite being sourced should it be suppressed? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Holder quote might be relevant as an indication of Obama administration response, if it is one. Actually, particularly in Washington, the unnamed officials often are the officials, just going under anonymity. I remember one, rather funny, press conference where a cabinet officer was speaking at the platform, left, came back out in the same suit, tie and clothes but with a paper bag over his head, and started answering questions in an "unofficial" capacity. The NYT in general can probably be trusted to have the unnamed party be one who knows what he is talking about. The concert related material I remember seeing in the news. It could, reasonably, be included in a "controversy" section related to one or the other politicians involved, but politicians acting like jerks and accusing each other of any number of absurd and ridiculous things, particularly in St. Louis, is kind of par for the course. I honestly can't see any reason for that to be included in content directly related to the shooting. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The full sentence in the article reads:


 * Can it be improved? Surely. But it is a significant viewpoint, IMO. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That first two sentences summeds up "Holder was upset his name was invoked and that the statement was made at a bad time of day.... which was night." While is mostly irrelevant because Holder is more than capable of issuing a statement, why, because giving a people 8 hours or all morning to get worked up in Ferguson was going to defuse the situation? Or would it be better at midnight or 4 a.m.? I think if it is important enough to get an official statement, we should consider it. Also, it makes Holder look petty - whether or not is it an "unofficial" statement it has no place in the article and is a weak BLP issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Episcopal Church in Minnesota
Thanks for your support on this and for initiating the movement. It was disheartening to see someone change it back to our old name so shortly after we were able to change it to our real name. I am very new to Wikipedia, I signed up solely for the purpose of correcting a few incorrect things on our page and finally changing the name. Can you explain to me more about how to request for name movement works? What will be the deciding factor and when? Again, thank you so much. Snide034 (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

 * Also, thanks for your diplomacy and guidance on Talk:Acts of the Apostles. I feel relieved from the stress that discussion has caused me. Cheers and have a happy Christmas! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Scott Card racist?
(Note: Per wp:CANVASSING I am "non-biasedly" advertising a topic for discussion by posting a notice on the ten most recent users who commented on the page in question's talkpage and also the ten most recent users who edited the article in question.) Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: "Orson Scott Card"? (Also see a 2013 blogpost by M Aspan citing this from Card in 2000 rgding allegedly non-racist use of nigga'.) See discussion here: Talk:Orson Scott Card  --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Ghana cedi
An article that you have been involved in editing, Ghana cedi, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Precious
 missing articles and people

 Thank you, INTJ "probably rather happier not to be" an admin, for quality articles such as Germerius, Maria Bertilla Boscardin and the father of the poor, starting in the "missing encyclopedia articles section" and adding the Saints banner, for thinking about a Bibliography of reference works and working on the Bibliography of encyclopedias: biology (art, religion ...), for a short biography but a long list of heroes, for, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (17 May 2009, 20 October 2009), - you , and 20 December is the date!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Such praise coming from someone who themselves has earned such regard possibly more than many others, that means a lot. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I was blushing in 2010, still have it on my user page. I have an FAC open on music = art + religion, in cast of interest ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well deserved. Solomon7968 08:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you so much! What a pleasant surprise! StAnselm (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Kylie Maybury
Can you do me a favour and give Murder of Kylie Maybury a once-over and clean-up? Paul Austin (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus arbitration case - proposed decision posted
This is a courtesy message to inform you that the proposed decision has been posted for the Historicity of Jesus arbitration case. Constructive, relevant comments are welcome on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)  Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk).

Please cut it out
John, please stop the continual harassment and personal attacks directed at me. You have not provided and evidence to support the accusations you make against me. You also state incorrectly that my remarks about Astynax are unsupported by evidence; there has been an abundance of information provided by myself and others on the evidence and workshop pages of the arbitration case. As regards your opinion that I have a COI in relation to Landmark, the fact that the Arbitrators have not made such a finding should be the end of the matter. I have made my position absolutely clear, and I don't know why you imagine I am under any obligation to respond further to an endless series of impertinent questions from yourself and Lithistman. DaveApter (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you have not. Your obvious refusal to answer a directly relevant question as to how you accessed material which is not available to the public raises serious questions regarding your basic honesty. Also, I find it nothing short of ridiculous that you do not seem able to recognize that there are few other editors involved in this topic that the "single-purpose accounts" principle would reasonably be seen as applying to. And, frankly, your rather obnoxious, and frankly stupid, trolling on this matter on the Historicity of Jesus talk page demonstrates I think rather clearly to anyone that your own conduct is open to question. I find it impossible to believe any person with a clear grasp of policies and guidelines could come to the conclusions you have, and, honestly, I cannot see that such reflects well on you. And please refrain from using my talk page in this fashion again. John Carter (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Redlinked bibliographies
John, FYI, I have been using this templates (below) to try to create internal links (and hence increase search engine ranking) of some of the country level bibliographies. You might be interested in trying to fill up the redlinks. Solomon7968 11:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing
Science, business, filmmaking and politics are 'feminist' interests. They are simply interests, and it is not 'paranoia' to suggest so. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Two days ago, to a new editor Ruby I said, "I've no issue with you or any other editor wanting to concentrate on articles that may be considered feminine. For me this is about articles and edits that end up having to navigate a sniper's alley whilst other articles and edits get safe passage." I also said, two days ago, "All threads started by GGTF participants are relevant to GGTF by the virtue of having been started by one of the project's participants." If I were POV pushing I would have said "Anything outside of radical feminism is irrelevant to the project." I don't believe that and I have never, ever said it.


 * All I said to you was that it was "interesting that your list of what you consider "topics of female interest" was entirely made of domesticity. FYI, I am not a radical feminist (in what way does my signature show that?). I am a socialist feminist. Also the GGTF reboot essay I wrote is made up of quotes, neither by myself, Carol Moore, or Neotarf, who have all been accused of ulterior motives, but from other GGTF members to demonstrate that there is no radical feminist agenda informing the project by me or anyone else. Perhaps it is you who need to read properly and need to examine your own paranoia instead of constantly trying rehash the project's scope. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method and User:Stephen G. Brown
What do you make of this? And how can the matter be over if Pass a Method now has the Zigguzoo account? If Pass a Method is emailing Stephen G. Brown and telling him about a new account he is editing under, how is it at all okay for Stephen G. Brown to still not move the name back to where it belongs? Flyer22 (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That account is from early November, unfortunately, and could be an indicator of some earlier contact. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What is confusing me is that Stephen G. Brown is revealing these other accounts, including this one, which show persistent WP:Sockpuppetry, and has indefinitely blocked Pass a Method (North Atlanticist Usonian) on Wiktionary, but is seemingly still unwilling to move the account name back to Pass a Method. Has a WP:CheckUser given Stephen G. Brown this "other account" information, or what? I would ask him about all of this, but, as you know, he closed that discussion on his talk page, and creating a new section on his talk page just to ask him about all of this is silly to me. I've clearly pinged him via WP:Echo here at your talk page to let him know of these additional thoughts I have about the Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppeting/rename case; so if he wants to comment on the matter, he will. Flyer22 (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We can recognize him by his edits and comments. We get plenty of users who go away and then reappear under another username. It’s not such a difficult thing to recognize someone who changes his username. I’m not going to answer any more pings on this issue. It has been discussed to death and you’re just repeating the same old arguments over and over. I have heard them all. Many times. I’ve revealed his new usernames as a courtesy, but I’m done with this endless pointless discussion. Please stop pinging me about it. —Stephen (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Stephen G. Brown, the above clearly is not me repeating the same thing. We also apparently have a different definition of what "many" is. I brought up a new aspect to the matter; it is a matter that you revealed on your talk page, but you had previously made it so that any further discussion there about this is essentially forbidden. As others, including you, have stated or otherwise seemingly agreed, if it was revealed that Pass a Method was still WP:Sockpuppeting, his username should be moved back to the Pass a Method username. Well, it's been revealed that Pass a Method is still WP:Sockpuppeting; that is, if you are correct that those accounts are his. And if catching WP:Sockpuppets was consistently easy, we wouldn't have WP:CheckUsers to help catch them. Certain WP:Sockpuppets are easier to catch than others. The main point of my posts above is that even after it is clear to you that Pass a Method is still WP:Sockpuppeting, is problematic for that on both the English Wikipedia and Wiktionary, you still have not moved the username back to where it belongs. You were wrong to move that username, and Pass a Method's constant WP:Sockpuppeting shows that. You were WP:Gamed by him, and seemingly don't want to admit it. Your so-called courtesy only helps prove my case on the matter, and gives you an excuse to make it seem like you have done something helpful regarding all of this. I will ping you when I am linking your username elsewhere on Wikipedia to point to this massive mistake of a rename you made. But it's not like I will be citing this case often; it's unneeded frustration to see an editor "stick to his guns" in the face of overwhelming evidence that he is wrong, and to call the matter "endless pointless discussion." It's only "endless pointless discussion" because you refuse to do the right thing!! Flyer22 (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Then let’s do this. I will offer no further curtesy updates, and in return I will ignore all further pings and messages from you. Reply to this if you wish, but I won’t be here to read it. As far as I am concerned, THIS discussion is finished and I choose not to cooperate with you any further on any matter. —Stephen (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Stephen G. Brown, as was made clear above, you weren't very cooperative anyway. So stating that you "choose not to cooperate with [me] any further on any matter" is not a big deal. I don't need your "courtesy updates," considering that I catch Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppeting just fine when he edits in areas that I edit in or edits articles that I have WP:Watchlisted simply to be on the lookout for him, including when he employs tactics (such as changing the way that he writes or throwing in different article interests) to avoid getting caught. You have acted poorly during this whole case, and I barely have any respect for you as an editor. If you think that you have the last word on this case, however, then think again. If I open even one more WP:Sockpuppet investigation on Pass a Method on Wikipedia, then you can guarantee that I will very likely go all out in getting that username changed back to Pass a Method, and I will succeed. If editors come to ask you for your opinion on this matter during that time, I will point to the silliness you showed in your replies, and indicate that you are simply being stubborn on the matter -- unwilling to change the username back without offering any valid reason not to do so. Again, I will succeed; I usually do when I put my mind to something, including on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC) (Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk))