User talk:John Carter/Archives/2015/January

Bob Dylan, reluctant figurehead?
Hi John Carter, Happy new year and all best wishes for 2015. Perhaps you could contribute your opinion about discussion currently taking place on Bob Dylan talk page? Mick gold (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! , and

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Unclarity
What I meant to say is that nobody was going to believe that NYB would be able to not think about Wikipedia during his well-deserved break. Seeing that two consecutive users took it completely the wrong way, the removal is probably for the best. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Je suis Charlie
Good template, thanks. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Tell me more
P.S. Also, when the bot finishes the assessment, you might want to transclude Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Cosmology articles by quality statistics into the main project page to indicate more clearly the current status of the relevant articles.

Please tell me more about that. I'm kinda confused Tetra quark (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The bot that updates assessment criteria should be able to generate something like the similar Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Astronomy articles by quality statistics page, the next time it runs for the cosmology project. A lot of projects transclude the chart into the main project page as an indicator of the current status of the tagged articles. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, that table. So, how long until the bot updates the assessment critera? Tetra quark (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's up to the schedule of the bots, but I think the rate of recent changes at the Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Cosmology articles by quality log page would indicate it should probably be done sometime on January 9. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat different from dishwashing liquid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:NA-importance_Cosmology_articles - there is something glitchy in the tamplate areas for this project - the third category of the red type on the right hand side seems to indicate something odd. your help to fix would be appreciated. satusuro 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for your help there...it seems to be fine there now satusuro 23:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral notification
You previously voted, opined, commented, or otherwise took part, at Template talk:Succession box. Please see a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder. Kraxler (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification
There is a request for clarification in which you are named here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Landmark_Worldwide.2FR6_Additional_eyes_invited DaveApter (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Daisaku Ikeda
Hi John. In the article mentioned above there is, yet again, a discussion about Polly Toynbee’s comment on meeting Daisaku Ikeda (Currently the article as a whole is protected, originally for a period of two weeks). Some go as far as bringing up copyright issues – which I doubt there is a case for. Personally I now think of composing a section with more or less large quotes of the article with a footnote and no online link. I do wonder now if there are any means to firmly attach such a section i.e. having a protection fixed to a section only. Do you have alternative proposals? --Catflap08 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any way to protect just a section of an article. Having said that, some of the existing quotes could be shortened a little. The material sourced from citation 128 looks good, but the first half of the sentence used for 129 and 130, the part that ends before the "but I have never..." could easily be paraphrased and not lose impact. The final quotation for citation 130 could I suppose also be paraphrased if required, with the full quote included in the citation note. I honestly can't see any valid reason for saying that there might be a copyright violation, and the "better source needed" tag I guess might make sense, but might also be stretching things a wee bit. I don't know Hoary that well, or have any clear information about whether his view of copyvio is accurate, but I think Dougweller has some familiarity with copyright issues and I can drop a message to him to ask him to review it. And he lives in the UK, so he might have access to the originals somehow. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well the full article or rather a copy of it can be found here (Polly Toynbee - The Value of a Grandfather Figure). I just have the impression that some would like the article or quotes of it disappear which in turn is a call for to make it stay – but stay with enough substance added. One could certainly have mixed feelings about Ms. Toynbee, but its her observation and keeping in mind it is also about her grandfather some in Tokyo could kick themselves for ever inviting her at the time. As for now it is one of the few critical first hand reports in English.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove the toride link and explained at the talk page. "Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement." Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This in turn is a rather nice oppertunity to quote and cite from the article at greater length. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC) I do however hope that if I payed the fee to obtain the PDF directly from the Guardian nobody comes along and questions the quote just because he/she is not willing to obtain a copy of the article for themselves. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request
There is an amendment request in which you are named here. Ignocrates (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide → Landmark Forum
Looks like a pretty strong Support vote so far and a perfect use of the Extant Organizations Noticeboard to find editors that specialize in org pages. I'm glad you dropped a note there, so I could chime in.

I think the advice I wrote at WP:ORGVANITY probably applies here: "Articles about an organization's subsidiaries, executives, products or divisions should be consolidated if it can be done while following the guidance of WP:LENGTH, even if each subject meets the bare minimum notability threshold. The article should be named after whichever is most notable (the person, company or product)."

I've gone through this quite a few times on articles where I have a COI and had to determine whether to create an article on a person, product or company. Naturally, the article-subject almost always prefers all three. Anyways, I'll try to keep an eye on it to see if anyone responds to my challenge of sorts.

CorporateM (Talk) 05:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)