User talk:Warlordjohncarter~enwiki/Archive Aug 2009

Thank you edit

  The Special Barnstar
Thank you for being an articulate spokesperson for me in Arbitration. You gave me hope with your insightful statements in many places there. You were invaluable—words cannot convey. I wish I could find a way to say how much your support meant. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Template:Mammal edit

I noticed you had a hand in merging the descendent projects of WikiProject Mammals into the above template, I have recently proposed adding options to the mammal template in order to better facilitate child projects, and would welcome your feedback. --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Cooneyite / Christian convention merge edit

Not a lot of new opinions showing up. Would you like to summarize and make the call? --Nemonoman (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Repeating this request today.--Nemonoman (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

What now need to be down is being awarded a Barnstar edit

Thank you for letting me know that I am worth of being warded a Barnstar.My Awarded Barnstars.
--Mr. Unknown (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Articles edit

Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Articles, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Articles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Articles during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jeffro77 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Category:Christianity in Macedonia edit

Hi! I removed your merger proposal from Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, because that page is intended for articles, not categories. The correct place to suggest a category merger is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. I've listed it there instead (see here). I also copied your original rationale to that page. Jafeluv (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you adopt me ? edit

Hi, I'm a new user, looking for some guidance under an experienced hand. Can you adopt me ? Rkr1991 (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC) . Sorry, but since I didn't get a reply, I got adopted by Dylon620. My apologies. Rkr1991 (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Formatting for autonumbering edit

I just saw your question in the edit summary here after fixing the numbering for my comment. Some of the indents above your reply were formatted as ::::: instead of #:::::, so the autonumberer started a new list. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Shamelessly seeking input at Advisory Council RFC edit

I've made a proposal on the talk page of the Advisory Council RFC in hopes of finding a constructive way forward. I'm shamelessly asking for input on it from you and others who have taken part in the discussion. Please see this section and contribute as you see fit. Thanks, alanyst /talk/ 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

POV image? edit

Hey John, is this image ok, or is it presenting a POV interpretation of events depicted/prophesied in the Bible? The image in question is File:Apocalypse1.gif. What do you think? Should I take the question the Christianity project or the Bible project? LadyofShalott 04:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thoughts at WT:X. AthanasiusQuicumque vult 22:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Christian Conventions edit

Noted that there are still plenty of SPS references in this article. The statements have a ring of truth to them but are always turned in a way to make the group look bad. For example, workers burn letters and such because they don't have room in their luggage, this is termed ominously "destruction of records", as if the group is not in compliance with some kind of statute. Article is full of this kind of thing. I really don't think much of wiki enforcement. A decision was made about SPS sources, and they are still there. That wouldn't matter in and of itself, except that the article has strong POV against the group. I see some of my suggestion for the first paragraph were taken, but I don't need nonemoman smearing me and also having to fight every line in the article out with the one author and his OR. My feeling is that wiki is now POV against religious groups, pro- secular after Scientology debacle, but that is just a feeling. I would STRONGLY suggest pulling ALL the SPS stuff but I know it won't be done. I suspect writer is either Daniel or Fortt since we do not know who he is. We do know he writes about this group, nothing else, and has done tons of his own research using primary sources. Why? RSuser (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Investigation Started edit

Hi! This is just to notify you that I have begun investigating 129.2.175.70. If you're interested, you may review the progress here. Thanks. Netalarm 12:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

advisory panel edit

I think you would be an excellent member, and if your name had been included I would feel a whole lot better about it. Did you send and email to ArbCom, as potential invitees are supposed to do? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

All prior attempts at creating similar groups in the past have been proposed in the past edit

"All prior attempts at creating similar groups in the past have been proposed in the past" is definitely true, but apparently meaningless. What did you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

[mv from my talk - WMC] I meant "rejected", not proposed. I've made the change to the statement to reflect that. Thanks for catching it. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Aha. Now I understand William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Engineer, DOD edit

Many Civil Servants and Contractors are in IRAQ and Afganistan and do get killed, captured/tortured, or injured. We all watch the four contractors being drug thru the streets and hung from the bridge in IRAQ. At least the Military gets combat training and have guns. The Civil Servants get hazard pay but no special medical benefits or what not to cover the dangerous duty. Furthermore, they have to pay taxes on their pay while overseas. 72.75.76.187 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

ANI edit

Hello, Warlordjohncarter~enwiki. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Refusal to engage arguments regarding the failure of some editors to engage arguments. The discussion is about the topic Martin Luther King. Thank you. --Årvasbåo (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Success! edit

Just thought I should notify you. I've received a response from the University of Maryland, agreeing to investigate and take action against the offending vandal. I'm now closing the case, and we can probably expect a decrease or end to this vandal's activities. Thanks for reporting the vandal! Concluding report may be found here Netalarm 15:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Introductions edit

Hi John, touched bases with ScienceApologist about prospective mentorship. He'd like to talk to you, so I suggested starting a dialog here. I'll be around if either of you need me. :) Durova278 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi John, what are you proposing vis-a-vis this mentorship? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - July 2009 edit

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors

 
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter
Issue X - July 2009
Project news
  • The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 76 FAs, 8 FLs, and 148 GAs. We gained new recognized content in each field, with 4 FAs promoted, 2 FLs, and 3 GAs. Congratulations and a big thank you to all those who worked on these articles!
Member news
Other news
  • I am still working on the categorization matter. With any luck, we should have some results by the end of the month. There are also some discussions regarding project related activities at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. One issue in particular that might be addressed is possible elections of new coordinators. Anyone interested in serving in such a capacity is more than welcome to indicate as much.
Related projects news
Member contest of the month
  • The previous contests are still ongoing, because of the extreme amount of time the categorization is taking me. Anyone who can bring any of the few Stub class articles among the project's 1000 most often accessed articles by the end of July will get an award. Please see the details Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Project challenge of the month.
Christianity related news
From the Members

Welcome to the Tenth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.

It has been a long time since the last coordinators election. There is a lot for people to do, and I certainly would welcome seeing any individuals with an interest in such a position put themselves forward as candidates. I in particular would very much like to see some degree of "specialization" in the coordinators, so that, for instance, we might have someone knowledgable about some of the specific Christian faith traditions or other main subjects, like Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, art, theology, and so on. If any parties who have experience with some of our faith- or- subject-based content would be interested in being candidates, I would love to see them do so. Please feel free to take part in the discussion regading what the minimum number of category items is, and how to deal with the non-qualifying categories, on the General Forum page.

John Carter (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by ~~~~

John Carter (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Weird thing edit

Hey John, been a long time. Anyway, there's this user called User:Kashmeri, who is using Aghajani Kashmeri as his userpage and Talk:Aghajani Kashmeri as his talk page via redirects. I know it's a he because on the article he uses a lot of first person, and says he is the son of the article's subject (within the article). Is he allowed to do this? I should know all this by now, yes, I've been here 5 months. But I don't. Sorry if I'm bothering you, I know you're pretty busy. Sorry. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 21:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re: Ready for delivery edit

 
Hello, Warlordjohncarter~enwiki. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Tinu Cherian - 04:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Removing references to username edit

Hi John: Special:Contributions/209.162.236.195 who apparently may also be Special:Contributions/RSuser and Special:Contributions/67.43.136.72 has been XXXXX'ing out a username in many places, including discussions. It's my understanding that the old username XXXXX is 209.162.236.19's actual name. If s/he has been the object of cyber-stalking, etc., or fears that might happen, God bless him/her and I hope all goes well. That user name, however has done 625+ edits, and has a real history that wants to be available and maintained, that this XXXXXing hides or makes obscure.

The affected user page has been deleted, but the user contributions remain and offer potential help and insight to other editors.

Do you have any admin tools that would allow to RENAME the XXXXX'd out username, and update talk-page references to that name? The rename could be to something innocuous == "FormerEditor" or something...

For example, I'm thinking it might be possible to change my username 'nemonoman' to 'DoctorNasty', and see that change propogated through all the places I'd signed my handle with --~~~~

Have you ever heard of something like this being done with a userpage? It was done with Taj Mahal: We removed some diacritcal mark from over the "a" in Taj so that seaching for Taj Mahal landed on the article instead of a redirect. Somehow all the page links using the diacritical also got changed, I would assume with some sort of admin tool. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify, I have no wish to change my old name on edit history, only in those 5 or 6 comments like the one above that deliberately linked my old name and new name together. Obviously that is an inadvertent outing as the old name was my surname. Anyway, nothing so drastic as cyber-stalking, I just don't want my now adult kids or anyone else who shares my surname to be mistakenly assumed to be that lunatic on wikipedia. :) Everyone with that surname, in the world, is a relative, however distant, of mine. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Dear 209.etc: I am not assuming any untoward intent on your part here -- I accept your privacy concern at face value, and I am trying to accommodate you by using "XXXXX" myself as we discuss. But the many contributions that were made using the XXXXX username are not now readily accessible by an editor late to the game, and an awareness of XXXXX's history on the CC article was very useful to me, so I assume it would be as well to any newly arrived editor. So finding a way to maintain access to the contribution history XXXXX made is a reasonable goal IMO, if we can find a way to accomodate your privacy concerns\. I assume you don't mind if an Admin has away to alias the XXXXX username and preserve easy access to the contribution history? I'm not doing this to make trouble for you, I'm just asking if the technical functionality exists. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
WP:CHU is probably the best way to go, although that action has to be performed by bureaucrats, not just mere admins. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Since the affected user is watching this page, I'll ask here for his/her opinion on how to proceed. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
As indicated I'm not concerned about the history that exists under my old name. The problem comes in when you and Astynax use references of the form "Old Name/ New Name", linking my old and new names in dialogue, instead of just calling me by my new name. That's why I've had to drop RSUser, because linking the two names defeats the purpose of my getting the new user name in the first place. (Never mind that I'd rather be anon anyway right now). Sorry, if I'm repeating myself but we don't have to change any of the history if you just drop the combined references. Just pretend the "old name" is a different person not related to me. If someone wants to CHU my old name, I'm okay with that but it's not strictly speaking necessary. 67.43.136.72 (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Holy Cow! edit

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For an astonishing amount of library work to provide better sources for Christian Conventions -- so much extra effor it makes me tired just to think about it! Nemonoman (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

After several years of being in wikipedia, rated with a class star and supported by the wikiproject, without any reason, the article of Rodolfo Valentin has been nominated for deletion. Can you please help to "keep" it?. thank youNicole reutman (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Comments edit

"But there is, so far as I can tell, no good reason for comments such as the above." Not clear whether you are referring to my comments or Nonemoman's in this sentence. Could you clarify? Thanks. Section link if needed is - Talk:Christian_Conventions#.22known_non-reliable.2C_SPS_sources.22 209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Stone-Campbell edit

Per your comment Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 14#Category:Universities and colleges by affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement, do you think it would be prudent to move Restoration Movement to Stone-Campbell Movement over the redirect? It would seem like a good idea to me, if your opinion was accurate. Hope you're doing well, and thanks for the input over at Talk:Southern Nazarene University#Crimson sources and research last month. I'm sorry if I neglected to thank you previously! --King of the Arverni (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

For profit activities edit

For a balanced view of Mr. Koch, Truthout's Greg Palast reports that, "In the 1980s, Charles Koch was found to have pilfered about $3 worth of crude from Stanlee Ann Mattingly's oil tank in Oklahoma. Here's the weird part. Koch was (and remains) the 14th richest man on the planet, worth about $14 billion. Stanlee Ann was a dirt-poor Osage Indian.

Stanlee Ann wasn't Koch's only victim. According to secret tape recordings of a former top executive of his company, Koch Industries, the billionaire demanded that oil tanker drivers secretly siphon a few bucks worth of oil from every tank attached to a stripper well on the Osage Reservation where Koch had a contract to retrieve crude.

Koch, according to the tape, would "giggle" with joy over the records of the theft. Koch's own younger brother Bill ratted him out, complaining that, in effect, brothers Charles and David cheated him out of his fair share of the looting, which totaled over three-quarters of a billion dollars from the native lands.

The FBI filmed the siphoning with hidden cameras, but criminal charges were quashed after quiet objections from Republican senators."

Read an interview with William Koch, Charles' brother, on CBS News detailing the above and mentioning that, in the subsequent investigation, 20 of Koch's "gaugers" testified under oath that stealing was company policy directly from the top [1]. This last is separate from William's testimony.

  • [1]: William Koch appears on CBS News
  • Truthout: Truthout discusses American values or lack of morality vis-à-vis native peoples, historically consistent American history.Stormport (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

RSN on CC article edit

Am I allowed to state a POV on the RS/N regarding CC sources? Not clear on this. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

No one is ever barred from commenting anywhere, provided their comments are appropriate and they haven't been made subject of disciplinary measures. Having said that, it wouldn't help much if the comments were very long. A simple indication of what sources are questioned and a short summary of why they are questioned would probably be acceptable, but any statement of excess length is more likely than not to effectively detract from the conversation. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I made my comments and hope they're beneficial. Please have a look and let me know if anything jumps out at you.209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

John Carter, I am concerned that the RSN request will become bogged down in too much detail. Any ideas? Could you step in and provide some focus. Thanks. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/TRANSWIKI edit

Might interest you. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your ANI post edit

Hi John, although I'm pretty sure the IP and The Twelfth Doctor are the same, I have to note that those edits are a content dispute in which you are, I think, correct, but not vandalism, and 3RR is supposed to be a 'bright line' with only reverting clear vandalism or BLP violations given an exemption. Note I've left one article unprotected as there wasn't enough action there to warrant protection. If it boils up, let me know, but watch your edits. I can't really warn one side of a dispute and not another, I'm afraid. Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're right there. Sorry about that, and thanks. I wasn't sure about the last revert myself, but looked at the policy page in advance and may have misread what I saw to my own advantage. I'm afraid that sort of mistake is one I do make once in a while. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I try hard to stop at 2. It's not worth getting warned about, let alone blocked. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Reliable sources edit

I put forward the point a long time ago (it's in the RS talk archives somewhere) that "reliable" sources is a misnomer, misleading and confusing, as no source is infallible. I suggested "acceptable" sources (for wikipedia purposes) would be a more helpful concept. Some sources may be reliable, but actually not acceptable, and vice versa. Sources may be acceptable for one thing, but not another. Some mainstream sources would be acceptable for all content, as wikipedia is essentially a digest of established thought (even if that is erroneous at times: if it's mainstream, it holds sway). Some sources would be acceptable in a much more limited way, i.e. to demonstrate an extreme, minority (but not "tiny" minority) viewpoint. Ty 01:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Barnstar edit

For helping me whenever I ask, even though you are busy and I am annoying, I present you with this:-

  The "Helping Random Idiots Who Can't Use Wikipedia" Barnstar
For helping me and stuff. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 14:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 14:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome [level 3 sarcasm]  :) Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

WikiVanuatu edit

Thanks for doing great work relating Vanutu wiki project. As I am starter in Wiki , i feel I have difficulty in templates. Kindly do some work to improve the Wiki Vanuatu project. Thank you friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueLankan (talkcontribs) 18:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

WikiVanuatu edit

Thank you friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueLankan (talkcontribs) 18:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Reply

Thank you edit

For reading the offer in the spirit it was intended. Let's hope that a year from now things are on a much better footing all around. Best wishes, Durova288 22:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI edit

Your assistance would be much appreciated in helping set up this wikiproject since you have so much experience in this field. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply