User talk:Warlordjohncarter~enwiki/Archive Sep 2009

Request for assistance
I am currently trying to help the editors in the topic area move away from POV pushing and personal commentary. (Please note: Talk:Falun Gong.) You are an editor that I believe can help facilitate this change. I am looking for some uninvolved people with experience and savvy to become involved in the editorial process. A review of the article and associated discussion, in a style similar to a good article review or broad RfC response, would be a good first step and very helpful. However, some leadership in discussion and editing as a whole would be invaluable and sincerely appreciated. This can cover a very broad range including (but not limited to) identifying article flaws, keeping conversation focused on content, reporting disruptive editors, making proposed compromises, boldly correcting errors, and so forth. If you are willing to help out, please look things over and provide your feedback on the Falun Gong talk page. Essentially, we need some experienced editors to put things on track. Any assistance in this regard is gratefully welcomed. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for chiming in at Talk:Falun Gong and especially for your kind offer to assist with sourcing. I sincererly appreciate it. --Vassyana (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please advise on recent edit on Falun Gong page
Please see: this diff and talk Talk:Falun_Gong. Normally I would revert this in a flash because it's blanking of sourced material, but since now you are here with your experience, I would like your advice. More info on this edit: Using Margaret Singer as a source is shaky and controversial, because of her background. So as a compromise Olaf added WP:RS on her background so the reader will not confuse her with other well established scholars. But that seems like it's not good enough and somehow PCPP thinks that "These material is irrelevant. This is about criticism of FLG, not criticism of Margaret Singer." Which is partially true, the section is not about criticism of Margaret Singer, but I think it should establish who Margaret Singer is and how scholarly her judgment is. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Hello... my old friend"
Hi! Could Moonraker022, Smjwalsh, and I have some of your sage advice over at Talk:Church of the Nazarene? This is the most recent edit with regards to the info. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

An attempt to rewrite the FLG articles
Do you think it's a good ideal to get the pro and anti FLG editors to rewrite the current FLG articles in a sandbox, and build the final article from the two versions? I previously voiced my concerns on the article, Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China, and worked up a (what I feel is) more neutral version version here.--PCPP (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Category trees
I noticed that you are making a lot of edits to pages like User:John Carter/Christianity category tree/7 to build category trees. Perhaps you already know about this and have a specific reason not to be using it, but in case you don't know I figured I'd point out that you can do all of this automatically using the categorytree syntax. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For example,

etc. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do know about those. What I am at this point basically trying to do is put together a list of all the relevant subcategories of Category:Christianity, so that we can ensure that the categories are all placed in the appropriate "parent" catgories and all the required subcats also exist. Unfortunately, that involves rather a long list, so I'm also trying to add "see (x)" links to replace the lower order appearances of categories to hopefully reduce space. Upon completion of the whole thing, I think I'll have a better idea which categories aren't yet appropriately categorized and which required categories haven't been made yet. John Carter (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Great Neck South Middle School
Can you delete this? I made a mistake for nominating that for deletion. I have changed the article to redirect. Hagadol (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of my league, I'm afraid. I don't deal with AfDs often enough to know the procedures there. My guess is that it won't be deleted, because there will be some memory somewhere about it, so that the page recording the withdrawl of the request might be useful. Maybe. If I were you, I'd post a message on the general AfD talk page about it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. They'd probably know the procedures better than I would. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User box
Hello John, do you know if there is an user-box saying "Don't read what I wrote, read what I meant to wrote"? I think that would be a great addition to my (and perhaps any) user page, because (and now I'm getting serious, (well that is my flaw)) even if it's unrealistically demanding it does uphold WP:AGF. PS: I'm not that experienced with user boxes (as it might be 'seriously' obvious on my user page). --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

More on intertranswiki
John. Could you edit Template:Expand language so whatever language template is applied e.g {Expand Russian} there is a sentence within the templates which reads e.g Please see Intertranswiki Russian for details. Preferably after it says Please expand this article. It is important that this is connected and coordinated with the new project. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 17:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

John, the templates were created by Calliopejen and I. There is no need for approval. She created the Expand language template herself after seeing my templates. She would have done it hherself but she has just gone on holiday. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 18:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Newsletter delivery
--  Tinu  Cherian  - 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

RS/N thread
Please have a look whether this summary is okay. Thanks. -- JN 466  19:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding Arbitration and sources.
As you already know, I have began an arbitration case draft at User:Colipon/My_Stuff/Sandbox. I was wondering, because you were the one who first reminded me of the possible Arbitration Enforcement route, would you mind contributing to this case, judging by what you've seen on these pages? I have never done arbitration before and I am unsure how to go about it. Colipon+ (Talk) 00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

topic-ban comment Falun Gong
Maybe a topic-ban for those involved wouldn't be such a bad idea. As a disinterested user who was invited to break up this "stalling filibuster," and whose "main field" is Southern Africa, I would eventually support that, even if it "hits me." Now that the article is protected, we have time to discuss, but if this keeps going, somebody needs to intervene, in the interest of wikipedia. Seb az86556 (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Any reason?
Hi, any reason for ? DuncanHill (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Just informing
You may wish to comment here as I have filed an arbitration enforcement case against User:Olaf Stephanos. As a relatively uninvolved outside editor I feel that your opinions will be valuable. Colipon+ (Talk) 04:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong sources
Hi John. I have no access to JSTOR so would you be able to mega-upload those pdf files of the books, publications, and journals you were talking about on Falun Gong? Colipon+ (Talk) 23:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my oversight. Will do. Colipon+ (Talk) 23:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've started a repository of potentially useful links for use in the Falun Gong articles. Please feel free to paste links there with a description of what they refer to, for easy relocation. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi John Carter. Thanks for the award! I will display it proudly. Nick Graves (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

 * Thank you for the invitation. I left that group earlier because of the presence of one editor, Fullstop, whose conduct is such that I dare say I find almost any contact with him something I would, basically, rather avoid. He was, ultimately, the reason I left that group earlier. However, if for whatever reason you think that any articles would directly benefit from my help and/or such help is not available from competent others elsewhere, I would certainly be willing to do what I can. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's rather too bad. However, Fullstop is not currently a member of the WikiProject. However, if you still do not plan on returning, I could still your help. Firstly, I was wondering, what was the reason for this edit, as it removed the from the template. Secondly, I would really appreciate if you peer review Zoroastrianism. The archive can be found here. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me? 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When you added the template to this page, it added the category to this page as well. Let me see if I can fix it so that the category appears. And, for what it's worth, Fullstop wasn't a member of the project then either. He involved himself in regular discussion as a non-member. Looks like you fixed the categorization already. Let me get on to the review. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The peer review has been done by another user, however if you could peer review it as well, that would be awesome. However, I am still wondering about the other things I mentioned in the above paragraph. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me? 19:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the peer review. Concering the WikiProject, we'd still appreciate if you could join the group and help us out. The WikiProject only has a few people as it is, and I think a few people in the WikiProject are currently inactive as well. However, if you insist on not joining, we understand. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me? 17:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Amendment
Hello, I leave this message to inform you that I am seeking amendment and an ArbCom review of the sanction imposed by administrator User:Shell Kinney. See. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  18:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One more thing: in the AE case, you wrote the following words: "This includes being opposed to content which I belive wikipedia content guidelines demand." Could you elaborate on these words and provide some links to the specific cases you are referring to? Thanks. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  22:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If and when you are in a position to be able to use that information, maybe then. Please understand that I do have other things to do as well. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

An extremely large amount of text has just been added at the arb. amendments case. *sigh*. Still very hollow arguments. Can't decide if I should respond. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If I was the one to suggest a 6 month topic ban first, perhaps he would be blaming me for the sanction, instead of you ;-) The truth is, your recounting of recent interactions with him struck a chord with the Arbs, showing how your finger is absolutely 'on the pulse'. I also suspect User:Snowed's review of the state of the FG article also confirmed to the Arbs there was a problem there. To quote Jimbo, "This all seems sadly unbecoming to me, and a direct consequence of our having been too tolerant, for too long, of toxic [behaviour]." Ohconfucius (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. What are you referring to?--Asdfg12345 20:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * John, just to let you know: I have not read the Falun Gong entry in The Encyclopedia of Religion. I have nothing against using it as a source, though. I have always tried to act consistently on Wikipedia, and my stance is fully represented by the quotes I offered on the amendment page. I am trying to defend the integrity of this encyclopedia by demanding that we use the highest quality material available. Whether it is 'critical' or not doesn't matter.


 * But you certainly know that all editors have some point of view; you have yours, I have mine. I am generally favourable towards Falun Gong, but I fully recognise the rights of other editors to utilise sources that comply with the Wikipedia standards. Yes, I can be extremely argumentative and picky, and I demand others to be logical in their words and fully explain their stance. However, this is not the real mistake I made. Based on what you have written, you too have a sense of humour that sometimes can be seen as offensive. I have this tendency myself, and I did not see it as a real problem before this arbitration case. It has forced me to take a serious look at some deeply rooted selfish elements in me, which is actually a good thing. But I just want to make it clear that I have never, ever tried to stifle critical information just on the basis that it is critical. It has always been about something else. Such accusations go directly against my identity as a Wikipedia editor, and if nothing more, I want the ArbCom to investigate these claims, regardless of whether the ban is lifted or not. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  15:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  18:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Banner
I'm still awaiting an update. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the Transwiki templates, like I said before, I would need to know the number of templates invovled and the text requested to be added. If you're talking about something else, please specificy. John Carter (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your input is needed
Hello :) It seems that you were heavily involved in a Macedonian saga, but you've distanced yourself lately. However, since you've spent a lot of time in it, you know your history and learned the quirks. This is not a life-threatening, major one, but it's nonetheless absurd. If you find the time and after bribing the willing Macedonian gatekeeper, please take a look here (or save some time going to this comment first). Thank you in advance! {P.S.: So, you have a lot of talk page stalkers? OK stalkers, this is it.} Ridm (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Move/redirect
John... sorry if I did not follow proper proceedure with the move/redirect (I have some experience with redirections and merges, but have never moved an entire article... I didn't even know there was a proceedure to follow.) Feel free to undo my edits, and set things on course for doing it correctly, if you think it is needed. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objections myself, as I think the newer title is more inclusive. But I have marked the page and if anyone else raises objections, I'll go ahead with the listing. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Seb az86556 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

FalunGongDisciple
Hello, I am involved in a discussion over the Criticism of Falun Gong page issue. While discussing I noticed that FalunGongDisciple had gone into the talk page and deleted all comments that disagreed with his own. I mentioned this on the talk page and on the talk portion of his userpage and while on his user page noticed he had already been banned from editing FLG articles due to disruptive edits. I noted you were the admin who had issued the ban. I don't know if he can also be banned from the talk pages but he seems dedicated to disrupting discussion there now that he can't edit the pages themselves. I thought you should know. Thank you very much.Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month
Is there interested members to chose some subject about Christianity in Chine and to work on it together (sevveral of us) and to make it article to FA or GA status?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 21:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Categorization
If there is some collaboration on categorization of Christianity articles I really want to help but I don't know how. If there is any information about it please send. Best wishes,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 06:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Athanasius - moved from IP page
Dear John Carter,

I am "MacforJesus", whom you challenged to supply proof of Saint Athanasius' innocence of the murder of Arian Bishop George of Alexandria.

I have prepared a short desertation, this being only an outline.

When someone seeks a job today they seek testimonials / references.

I refer to the testimonial given by Julian the Emporor that succeded his father Constance, November 361. He reverted to paganism and was an adversary of Saint Athanasius.

He sent a message to the Bishop to expel him from Alexandria and gave the reasons, simply that he did not permit him to return to his see.

At this occasion he had the opportunity to give more reasons but did'nt. If he had given the reason of murder or complicity in murder it would have been far more damaging for the church would not continue to accept Saint Athanasius.

My study of heremenutics assures me of the credability of this.

In fact Julian refers to Saint Athanasius' qualities of personality and courage even in a derisory way.

The full outline of these details and references I can supply.

Athanasius continued to be accepted as a leader of one of the five centers of Christendom and visited Antioch, and the petrarch there to consolidate the Nicean Creed. A thing he could not do if there was the slightest hint of complicity in murder. He would be shunned by all.

MacOfJesus (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All of the above you say is interesting but it without references to support those statements it would be a violation of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or WP:POV to allow the content of the article to be effected by such conclusions. I specifically asked for reliable sources, as per WP:RS, to support the contention, and I still request such material, as that is the only material which can be used to effect the content of an article. John Carter (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No, this is just the outline of my response. The full account including references will come later. Why I sent this outline is that if you don't accept my understanding of Julian's words, there would be no point in continuing.

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, unfortunately, if it is just 'your interpretation of Julian's words", emphasis on your, there probably isn't going to much point in going on, because if you are trying to make a statement based on your own interpretation of statements in reliable sources, rather than tusing explicit words of RS's themselves which make the same point, then you would be basing the argument not on what the sources say, but your own interpretation of sources, which would violate one or more of the policies linked to above. I myself am going to try, emphasis on try, to find Rowan Williams' book on Arianism and Arius, which I think is a source of some of the material you are contesting. Unfortunately, I have no doubt that book is considered an RS, so its statements will probably qualify for inclusion. But what we need here is clear statements from the sources themselves, not our own interpretation of those statements, because we can't use anything we ourselves generate anywhere here. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I would just quote the banishment order of Julian after 22 Feb 362, after George the Arian Bishop was killed, this should stand for itself. The very absence of an accusiation, here, should be enough. My interpitation of it can be left out! The interpitation can be left in the outline which I'v sent to you.

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No unfortunately it almost certainly isn't enough. What you are trying to do is draw a conclusion based on evidence, and have content changed to reflect that conclusion. The absence of an accusation in a given document does not mean that such an accusation could not have been made. There are any number of reasons why anyone might opt not to include information, and it would be a very clear violation of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR to say that the absence of a statement means that such a statement could not be made. If you want to say that it is impossible that Athanasius did something, it is incumbent on you, by policy, to find a source which explicitly states that. The absence of an accusation in that document is not proof of anything.
 * Like I said, the Williams book is considered a reliable source, and is probably the best known work regarding the subject to have come out in recent years. I even heard an hour long interview with him on "Fresh Air" at the reissuing of the book. Like I said, I haven't yet gotten ahold of the book, although I will try tomorrow, but as I remember he made statements in that book to the effect that there were some who believed that Athanasius's conduct was less than it might be. If he does say as much, then that information will have to be included. The only way to refute that would be by additional information cited directly from sources arguing the opposite. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC0

The Order was addressed from Julian to Ecdicius, the Prefect of Egypt, given to Saint Athanasius and his people on 23 Oct 362, by Pythicodorus Trico, permantely commanding the expulsion of the restored primate on the grounds that he was never included in the Imperial Order of Clemency.

When I asked students of this study, they replied: "How are you going to prove that".

I was going to look up the writings of the other Saints who lived on or after Athanasius at their writings for testamonials.

MacOfJesus (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Verifiable statements of contemporaries or near-contemporaries would be reasonable content to be added, and, if those statements say something to the effect of "he couldn't do such things" that would definitely qualify for inclusion. But we can only repeat what others have explicitly said before, and not try to draw any conclusions they themselves did not explicitly draw based on their statements. John Carter (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Saint Gregory of Nazianzen 330-390, said in Or. 21: "When I praise Athanasius, virtue itself is my theme: for I name every vertue as often as I mention him who was possessed of all vertues. He was the true pillar of the church. His life and conduct were the rule of bishops, and his doctrine the rule of the orthodox faith."

Full references and sources can be supplied! Saint Gregory of Nazianzen & Saint Athanasius are doctors of the Church, so am confident in "prooving" my hand.

I cannot find anything better than this, at least at the moment!

MacOfJesus (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but do note that general statements about how a given subject is "x" don't necessarily suffice to indicate that same person didn't do "y". I wasn't able to find the Williams book yesterday, so can't go into detail regarding it yet. I hope you realize I'm not disagreeing with you, simply trying to do what policy requires of us all. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for coming back to me. I'v discovered a testimonial that might be what we are looking for. Mother F. A. Forbes, a student of this study says, that Jovian, the Emperor that succeded Julian wrote Athanasius a letter: "Jovian - to Athanasius, the faithful servent of God, it ran. "As we are full of admiration for the holiness of your life and your life and your zeal in the service of Christ our Saviour, we take you from this day forth under our royal protection. We are aware of the courage which makes you count as nothing the heaviest labours, the greatest dangers, the sufferings of persecution and the fear of death. You have faught faithfully for the Truth and edified the whole Christian world, which looks to you as a model of every vertue. It is therefore our desire that you should return to your See and teach the doctrine of salvation. Come back to your people, feed the flock of Christ and pray for our person, for it is through your prayers that we hope for the blessing of God". Another letter followed inviting him to visit Antioch. The Arians were there asking for a new bishop at Alexandria. "We are Alexandrians and we desire a Bishop". "I have ordered Athanasius to return to his See". "We have proofs against him". "He was banished by Constantine.." I have heard a very different story..." His teaching is well enough, but his heart is full of malice." "He calls us heretics!" "That is his duty and the duty of all those who guard the flock of Christ".

I'v yet to trace the sources. I'll look up the life of Jovian.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Useful information again. Unfortunately, at the time, it wasn't unheard of for even extremely pious people to order the killing or torture of adversaries, and nothing you've shown to date definitively addresses that particular point. I think the Williams book does to some degree. I hope so anyway. Unfortunately, as of today, only a copy three or four editions ago is available. I am going to check tomorrow what if anything I can find in that book, because I personally at least hope the content hasn't changed that much. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It is very hard to prove a negative. If I were to say that the present Pope could never have being complicity in murder, I may be asked why I were to say that. If this accusation was not there in the years after Athanasius, how can we prove one way or the other, Q.E.D. proof? I'm still looking.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. It is very hard to prove a negative, particularly if WP:RS's make a significant statement of how it might be possible. The possible strength of the apparent accusation is one factor to consider. If, for instance, Williams says something like "The Arians accused Athanasius of torture, and these accusations were largely dismissed by everyone else," then we can say something to that effect without any WP:SYNTH problems. If he doesn't, all that can be done is to add the "accusations" and "responses" in accord with WP:UNDUE. Our primary here isn't to present any opinion of any subject, but rather to as accurately as possible reflect what the existing material regarding the subject says. Most of the major church fathers didn't get involved in controversies of this type, and so they didn't face these sorts of accusations. Even fewer had adversaries whose material has survived to any degree, and so taking into account those lost "accusations" isn't something we have to do, although Mary Magdalene is one case in point where we do have to. I wish it weren't the case, but them's the rules. I can also check on the response/reviews of the book. If they discount the accusations such that they qualify as WP:FRINGE, then they can be placed in an article on the book proper. But that will require a review of the responses to the book, and that might be rather more complicated. John Carter (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I do ask you, to look again at the declaration of Saint Gregory Nazianzen; Athanasius being a man of all vertue, surely that includes inclination to murder, anger, plotting, etc. The seven deadly sins or the capital sins shows that these inclinations are the opposite to vertue and are excluded in all vertue. It was said after his death. It surely will stand up to any scrutiny. I doubt that you will get anything better than that. I do know what you mean be some proposing to be vertous and not, i.e. the life of Saint John of The Cross, who was imprisoned by another order of religious! Also, in the account of Jovian, the Ariens had the chance to outline their objection to Athanasius and to the Emperor, too, and all they could say was that Athanasius said that they were heretics. This was said when they were challenged to place their objection, directly to the Emperor Jovian (who had been an officer in the Roman Army, renound for their fairness and leadership of men).

I am very impressed by Mother F. A. Forbes account and, too, The Butler lives of The Saints. The strict "historical" accounts seem to have a lot of lacunae!

A clinical, non-biased entry can be made on the two suggestions above, after further research.

MacOfJesus (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

On second thought surely in the case of Saint Gregory's testamonial x does exclude y. (Seven Deadly Sins), going back to Pope Saint Gregory the Great. In all honesty, vertue and all vertue does exclude the directive to murder or the inclination to murder. Piety, or piousness are not opposits to sin, in this case. In the case of Henry II of England, anger came before his words, one of the deadly sins. (He did repent of it, however, and publically). In the case of Jovian situation I think there is good case to make to stand independantly and is a worthy item for Saint Athanasius' page, one way or the other.

MacOfJesus (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see the end result as placing a factual statement with reference without infrence on the site. I have placed such an entry into the Saint Dismas site under "Theological Significance". I am not unfamiliar with historical discourse. I am also familiar with spirituality and the soul's struggle for holiness. Thank you for taking my little efforts seriously.

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

May I have concensus to place the Saint Gregory testamonial in the main site as it is given above without infrence, and where on the site would it be most appropriate?

MacOfJesus (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear John Carter, I hope to have in my possession the books: Rowan Arius Williams, Heresy and Tradition '87, Dartm., L. & Todd, and Duane Arnold, The Episcopal career of Athanasius of Alexandria 1991, sometime shortly.

MacOfJesus (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear John Carter,

I'v received the message you left me, and responded there, OK? Thanks.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear John Carter,

I'v left further research and thoughts on that same page, OK? Thanks.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear John Carter,

I'v left a short note on the page where the discussion is. I think this will be the answer.

MacOfJesus (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear John Carter,

I'v left a further note on the same page, and, I think a good challenge to Barnes, and a request to place on the main page. And also a further challenge to a biased comment on a main page! (Will I ever stop!)

MacOfJesus (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the skeptical movement oppose cults?
There is some disagreement about whether the skeptical movement opposes cults in any notable way. Diff here. Discussion here. I would value your input. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Christian conventions
That article has GOT to be better than start class(!).--Nemonoman (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You're in both projects, I think -- be bold!--Nemonoman (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

! You were BOLD ! --Nemonoman (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for your support and for the truth. I have also invited comment on the main page of Hosius of Corduba, which contains opinion !

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please contribute with an oppinion here
Hello, Could you please contribute with an oppinion here: Talk:Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev enforcement case
Kindly note that an Enforcement case has just been filed against Dilip rajeev here. You might like to comment. Please note that this is a permalink; any commenting should be done only after clicking on the 'Project page' tab. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Heads up
See this. - Could cause issues from some POV pushing WP:SPAs that get offended by this for-profit company being classed as religious in nature in any way - despite the fact that there are entries on it in multiple encyclopedic printed books on New religious movements... For example:, ,. I would recommend taking example from these multiple WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources... Cirt (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see . I have done a good amount of research in order to put together this text relating discussion from secondary sources. Please take a look, let me know what you think? Cirt (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and I see that the project tag was removed again. Perhaps the sources and material I added to the article will help bolster the relevancy of the NRM taskforce to the article? Cirt (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Very Prestigious Award
As much as this may look like vandalism, it isn't. Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 17:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Small Print
This is nothing like the "WOT..." award system, it is completely different from WOTD, it is in no way affiliated with WOTD, we have never even heard of WOTD.

rating Christian articles - just curious
John you recently increased the rating on the LDS Church article to "mid." As I was looking at the respective rating categories, I really could not get a feel for why certain articles receive a rating. Jehovah's Witnesses and Adventism for example have a "top" rating, but many other churches are found in all other categories. Can your help me understand what logic is used to differentiate between the application of ratings? Just curious, thanks. --Storm Rider  17:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not advocating a higher rating per se for the LDS Church, but attempting to understanding the logic. It appears highly subjective given the number of articles that are rated and where they are found in the scale. Christidelphians also have a top rating, which I don't see how they have had a major impact on Christianity. The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism is also rate top, but this is confusing because the ten commandments remain a basis for all Christianity.
 * The Latter Day Movement article receives a top rating along with JWs, and Adventists. I will go out on a limb and take a controversial position, but the LDS movement does not exist without the LDS Church. I would agree that there are a lot of splinter groups, but in relative terms they are insignificant to the movement. It does appear that the top rating is mostly reserved for the major groups and not individual churches, but then Russell's group is also a splintered groups among them the Worldwide Church of God, the Concordant Publishing Concern and the Assemblies of Yahweh. Other off-shoot groups of the Bible Student movement include the Pastoral Bible Institute and the Layman's Home Missionary Movement; however, I am not aware of a single article the groups them all like we see with other groups.
 * I appreciate the response John; it may be worth participating in major review of the rating scale and where certain topics should go. Cheers. --Storm Rider  18:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your warning of User:AJackl under discussion at ANI
Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I brought up that you had previously warned the for related issues, therefore you may wish to be aware of this discussion and comment. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

NRM Workgroup
I apologize if I put that in the wrong place. I guess I'm not quite sure what that section actually covers. Are those topics already covered by existing projects? Go ahead and remove it if it's misplaced. As for the Prem Rawat project itself, we're just getting it going as a quasi-mediation effort. We haven't gotten around to tagging pages with banners yet. We'd probably want to have a very generic banner with no graphics. If you're good with banners you're help would be appreciated. And thanks for all the work you're doing on the NRM project.  Will Beback   talk    22:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recommend a photo or other graphic, partly because we're not trying to gain attention, and partly due to disputes over the scope or name of the project and related categories. The PR project is a sub project of religion, but I'm sure to could also fall within the workgroup's scope. As I say, I'm really not sure what that list is, so maybe it'd be better just to take it off. I suspect that the activities of the PR and NRM proejcts should largely operate independently of each other even if they cover some of the same articles.   Will Beback    talk    22:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.   Will Beback    talk    22:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Governance reform/Policy Committee version 1
Is Governance reform/Policy Committee version 1 still an active proposal or should the tag be changed to historical or rejected or something? Hiding T 09:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Manson family
Hi. I saw you'd added the banner for the New Religion Movements workgroup to the articles on Manson family members. I was a little puzzled by the inclusion and thought maybe you could clarify what aspect of the Mansons is seen as religious. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. I'm skeptical about any view of this group as even quasi-religious, but I'll hold off on removing it until I've talked to the other two highly involved editors. I know at some point, the word "cult" and Manson were associated, but I'm not convinced the "cult" was religious. Thanks again and good luck on the new project! Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, multiple secondary sources refer to Manson Family as a religious movement. Cirt (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know that some like to view them that way. I suppose it depends on how one views Charlie's rap of Helter Skelter and a race war. In my mind, a true cult includes real beliefs by the whole group including the leader. Charlie used whatever he had in his repertoire of knowledge to persuade people, but referring to the Bible wasn't very in-depth and he didn't believe it. His goal was keeping himself in girls, drugs, money and power. I see them as more of a drug and sex cult, if they were any sort of cult. His objective was to protect himself from being arrested for what he erroneously thought was a murder he'd committed (Bernard Crowe), getting Bobby Beausoleil released from jail for the Hinman murder and, as a by the way, get revenge for not getting a recording contract. What was said and what was done were widely disparate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You both know a lot more about this subject than I do, so I can't really comment on what either of you said, other than to maybe ask that, while I do not doubt Wilhartlivie's statement about Manson's motives, whether the other members of the group held the same motivations. If they were, somehow, believers in what he said, even if he wasn't, that might make it a real "cult", even if its leader was a fraud. John Carter (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not our judgment as Wikipedians that matters, but rather what is said in secondary sources about the group itself. Cirt (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Warrior 4321  14:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Couple of things
First, but maybe not foremost from my viewpoint, your User page appears double (e.g., Personality section near the top, then again in the middle, everything else repeated in sequence thereafter) when viewed on my iBook using Safari. Not sure why, maybe you want to check it out.

Second, which is the main reason for writing, I saw this when I checked my watchlist:

24 August 2009 (diff) (hist). . m Talk:Arica School‎; 17:55. . (+58) . . John Carter (talk | contribs) (C class for NRMs)

There is no John Carter signature on that Talk page, so I assume your change was just the rating. Now, the big question: how can the page be improved? Martindo (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent comments
I can understand your being very put out by the comments of the other editor, and frankly don't disagree with you regarding at least the kind of reaction you gave them. But signing yourself as "Jesus Christ" and comparing that party to a twelve year old weren't what anyone would necessarily call really appropriate behavior either. We all know that conversations regarding political and religious topics around here can get quite heated at times. The new WP:NRM, new religious movements work group, has six separate topics which are under probation that I've found so far, and I think I'm only about halfway through the main subcats yet. But it really in no way helps to encourage others to respond reasonably if they receive obviously inflammatory responses to their own stupid comments; actually, it will tend to make things worse. Even though the provocations are going to be in several instances profound, and, yes, even though I myself am far from being a good adherent to this guideline, I think it would be in everyone's best interests, including your own, if you were to refrain from such inflammatory comments in the future. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, alright, I hear you, but tell me you didn't at least smirk or smile if not outright laugh at them, some of them. GabrielVelasquez (talk)
 * PS, sorry wrong page, and by the way I'm going to use "Black Rainbow" from now on instead of "Jesus Christ." GabrielVelasquez (talk)
 * PPS, could you do me a favor and third the copied comment, with a further bold clarification. Thank you. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin issue or maybe not
this user: AnonMoos (talk) has what appears to be the article box on his own userpage, is that allowed?.

GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

See AN thread
I mentioned an administrative warning you gave in a new AN post, please see Administrators'_noticeboard. Cirt (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Of possible interest
I'm dealing with some stuff here: WP:ANI. Maybe you can help? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)