User talk:Warlordjohncarter~enwiki/Archive Apr 2009

No content in Category:Unassessed-Class Interfaith articles
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Unassessed-Class Interfaith articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Unassessed-Class Interfaith articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Unassessed-Class Interfaith articles, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

New userbox for WikiProject Guatemala
I created User WikiProject Guatemala -- in case you wish to add it to your user page. -- Shunpiker (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Very nice of you to drop in a pay an old friend a visit hey? Why haven't you emailed or spoken? How are you? Dr. Blofeld      White cat 22:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Roman Vandalism
I am contacting all the members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject City of Rome (what few there are) to let them know of the vandalism problems at the articles for the Roman forum and the Pantheon, Rome. I am no longer watching these pages as I am a little disgusted by Wikipedia's refusal to protect these pages after months of vandalism. At leat the Roman's had a way to deal with the vandals. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Daftah
A tag has been placed on Daftah, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. UAEPrivate (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt
The banner: AncientEgyptBanner

Does not really work as it should. Importance is not displayed. Can this be fixed?--Secisek (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks much. You do enough around the projects you should have one of these:

Francis Lucille
Hi, I have found your username from the spirituality section. I need your help and suggestion. I am trying to add an article on one of the Living spiritual teacher. but,I am facing an problem.

The editors who have visited this page don't understand spirituality and they have tagged it for deletion. i need your help urgently. so they are trying to compare it with other biographies in the field of sports etc. As you know,the field the spirituality is not very commercial. so I am having a hard time convincing them. could you please help amd and take a look at article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Lucille http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Francis_Lucille.

Appreciate all your help.

Thanks Amarhindustani Amarhindustani (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Checking the "bad words" list for Version 0.7
Hi John, great to hear from you recently, and thank you for your kind offer to help read through hundreds of puerile attempts at humour. Wizzy has finally got a "diff" version of his list, which only lists "bad words" that have since been removed - it's still over 20,000 words, but that is much more manageable than 70,000. The list is available for download [here in zipped form. Please let me know if you're available to help, and then we can start divvying up the list.  Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC) John, we now have a project page to coordinate this effort.  Please sign up if you can help.  Thanks, [[User:Walkerma|Walkerma]] (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi John, Had not seen you around for a while. Welcome back. Cheers History2007 (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Help with a WP please
Hi there. I noticed you created Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Bristol articles by quality back in 2007. I'm setting up WikiProject Cardiff and was wondering if you could help me set up Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Cardiff articles by quality. I've had a look at Version 1.0 Editorial Team on how to set it up but it's not making any sense to me. I'd really appreciate your help. Thanks a lot Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot for doing that. It's much appreciated. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Gos as the devil
Re. God_as_the_Devil,

There is an ongoing discussion in Talk:God_as_the_Devil about whether or not a number of quotations should or shouldn't be included in the article. I see that you put a comment about this in another section, but wasn't quite sure of your meaning. As I have no expertise in the area, and feel it would be very helpful to get some input from other users. If possible, could you contribute your views in that section of the talk page?`

Many thanks, --  Chzz  ►  01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Iglesia ni Cristo
Hi john carter,

I'm a little iffy about the template and I hope you can explain. Shouldn't it contain subject matter that support the Iglesia ni Cristo, as in the Roman Catholic template? The reason I didn't put the original template to the page was because there wasn't much to information. As it is now, most of the information you added do not even pertain to the Iglesia ni Cristo. Conrad940 (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2009 (U TC) moved to Template:Iglesia ni Cristo Conrad940 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography
Talk:Tom_Cruise:_An_Unauthorized_Biography - Could use your input and also researching capabilities here, if you could find any WP:RS sources on this. Cirt (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I see you are already aware of it. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Would also appreciate your input at Talk:David_Miscavige and at Talk:David_Miscavige. Cirt (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment of Martin Bucer
I replied on the Talk:Martin_Bucer. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Thank you for your attempt at constructive comment. However, due to its lack of specifics the rationale is unclear. --  spin control 23:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Telling you that you could be blocked for continuing in the way you have was, I thought, clear enough. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Just want to say that I appreciate your ability to get on with and talk to both sides here. If we had more people in no-man's land, it would be easier for folks to give up sitting in trenches. Cheers, Jayen 466 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back and notification
Hello, John: Welcome back. I hope that you are feeling much better.

Unfortunately, I am here to inform you that my most recent mentor, Shell Kinney, feels that her mentorship of me is unsuccessful and is no longer is willing to mentor me. Since my previous mentor (Ecoleetage) did not inform you that he had thought his mentorship no longer necessary and had withdrawn (prior to Shell's adopting me), and since you and others thought you needed to be informed of this change, I have reminded Shell that she perhaps needs to update you on her withdrawal ending her mentorship of me. In case she is too busy to do so, I am doing so here. --NYScholar (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) In case you need to examine it, to save you some time, I am providing some of the contexts; please see Shell's post on my [now-archived] talk page section Harold Pinter and MLA citations in general, replying to my recent request on her talk page (Urgent: Assistance requested (again)) (Re: linked talk page of 5 Feb. 2009), and the articles and talk page and archived talk pages Harold Pinter, Talk:Harold Pinter, Bibliography for Harold Pinter, Talk:Bibliography for Harold Pinter, The arts and politics, Talk:The arts and politics, Parenthetical referencing, The MLA Style Manual, The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, and Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC) [updated link for your convenience. --NYScholar (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)]


 * Hi John; before seeing this I had put together an email to some of the others involved in the community ban discussion that resulted in this last attempt at mentorship. I have forwarded this email to you; if you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.  Since I am mostly inactive on Wikipedia at this time, I will respond to email considerably faster than my talk.  Thanks. Shell   babelfish 22:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Mount Alvernia College
Hey, John! I wonder, would you be willing, or able, to revive a deleted article? I know you don't have one of those cute userboxes that say so, but I thought I'd ask since I know you, and not those other admins, haha. The article above was deleted for lack of notability. WP:UNIGUIDE asserts that all colleges and universities are notable, but it seems this one didn't have any sources (as if that were out of the ordinary, right?). I'd like to found out more and recreate it, but I'd like access to what once existed there. Let me know what you think. Cheers! --Aepoutre (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, thanks. Good call; I agree now that it'd be much better to start from scratch. I never would've guessed that was the entirety of the article, haha! --Aepoutre (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion
What do you think Talk:%C3%93engus of Tallaght? Philly jawn (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello
How are you feeling? I've really missed you being on here. I knew it had to be serious. Does it mean you can't edit much anymore or do you think it will get any better? Dr. Blofeld      White cat 15:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well its great to have you back, keep in contact. You may be interested I've devised a little translation scheme see Category:Expand by language Wikipedia templates. They have been administered to many articles to bridge the gap betwene wikipedias. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Break
Hey, John, I'm taking a break. I wanted to ask you opinion on a couple of issues, since I feel rather inadequate as a non-admin running into admins and a few others who don't seem to be as serious about Wiki standards, guidelines, or civility as I do. I've had run-ins with User:Orlady before: and most recently I've encountered this:  but can't seem to find "thoroughly discussed" on the talk page for the article. Maybe I've missed something, but it looks like the assumption that WP:VERIFY and use of diffs doesn't apply to all aspects of Wikipedia for some as it does for me. There are two other interesting run-ins recently with admins and. The reverted edits for the former are especially interesting because, if I seem to recall, an undo gives this message:"If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message." It also looks to me as if I'm the only one in either situation to use a talk page to discuss any of this; everyone else uses edit summaries with vague explanations and specious arguments, and I've just never felt comfortable disagreeing with admins (I suppose you could compare it to someone who feels harrassed by a boss in a work environment, haha!). Let me know what you think, and I'm going to go do something else for a while. Cheers! --Aepoutre (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, there. Thanks for your input. I honestly have no idea what came over me; just needed a break, I guess. I feel quite the fool now! It so odd because I'm usually the one displaying "professionalism" in disputes . I really appreciate your kind words, John. It was stupid of me to even bother you with this crap! Cheers. --Aepoutre (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Israel and wikiproject inclusion
I don't think one editor making a redirect so that a link doesn't look red on a template makes it definitive that the article to which it redirects to becomes part of the Wikiproject. People could be making redirects all over. I'm actually all for deleting that redirect. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, albeit in a somewhat different way. Thanks for all your help in categorizing the pages.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

recategorizations
Great work doing all the re-categorization uniting members and histories! Smkolins (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Starting Tips
Thank you for the starting tips I'm sure reading those will keep me busy for a while, but hopefully, I will get better at this wikithing Knosisophile (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC) The five pillars of Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page How to write a great article Manual of Style

Thank you!
Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and hope that I will be able to fulfill the community's expectations. – Joe   N  01:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight
I don't agree with your assessment. If an issue occurs on the Jesus page then there enough editors to deal with it there. The very few editors who are part of the Baha'i wikiproject will not only play a small part, but their views will be undue weight on what happens on that page. In addition, the addition of Baha'i content on multiple pages has already come up in multiple locations including on the fringe noticeboard, and the decision there was that in many cases the Baha'i view was given too much prominence. Putting the Baha'i wikiproject in the same status as the Christianity or even Islam wikiproject on those pages doesn't help the situation. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one that decided that the Baha'i view was too predominant in pages not related to the Baha'i Faith; that's the multiple of editors who spoke of it in the Fringe views noticeboard. I'm trying to abide by that consensus, and not let it be a problem again. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not everything in the category tree has to be replicated in the Wikiproject, since that would be a duplication of effort. If it were the case, then the Wikiproject wouldn't need to tag everything since it could just use the category tree.  The previous discussion was at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_9 and continued at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion/Archive_2 and tracked at User:MARussellPESE/Treatment_of_Bahá'í_subjects_in_related_articles.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Germanic Studies template
Hello! I would like to remind you of the message I sent you back in August, which can be viewed here: Template_talk:WikiProject_Ancient_Germanic_studies. It would have been great if you had a look at it! I am not particularly skilled in template editing, so I would need your help to change anything if we establish a new consensus. –Holt (T•C) 18:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

None of My Edits To The Historicity of Jesus Article Are Vandalism
Statements like that of Richard Carrier's are unproven. Carrier has no evidence to back his claim, and neither do any of the other historians. From what they have said, Tacitus appears to have been sympathizing with the Christians and agreed to write their POV as part of Roman history. Tacitus likely did not do so at all. If you read about him, you will learn that he was a Roman historian and friend of Nero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.233.213 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sir, what was POV is the writers content. It is not neutral. It is a violation of the NPOV policy to include such content on the article, and that's why I deleted it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.233.213 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I know what I'm doing I have not made any statements what-so-ever in POV form. If you the read remarks of the historians, and it suggests that Tacitus was doing so. R.T. France claims that Tacitus was only repeating what the Christians told him. He is insulting Jesus, and he was a Roman nationalist; therefore, in good faith, it is easy to assume it is not likely that Christians would have told him, nor is there anything to back his claim. Carrier also claims that it is unlikely that he would have done research or written about Jesus; there is nothing to back this POV remark either.

Carrier also argues that Pliny the Younger interrogated Christians to get the information; this too is an unproven statement, and it is unlikely that Christians would try to spread negative influence against Jesus, as Tactitus did. Guignebert is also arguing that it there is no possible way that Tacitus would have written the statement about Jesus unless Christians told him about it; that's also unproven nonsense, and again, Tactitus is not defending Jesus. Also, I ask of you what religious follower would want to spread negative influence about their holy figures? Also, please don't look at the previous edit, as I discovered it was not you who made the statement about me being offensive75.72.233.213 (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly why the content should be removed. It is not verifiable. It is only a person's individual opinion, and not a valid argument.75.72.233.213 (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)