User talk:Warlordjohncarter~enwiki/Archive Oct 2009

Divinism

I think this could be an article on 'Divinism', but this looks like a publicity attempt. Besides being a nickname for Father Devine's cult, it has religious meanings -- see for instance and do a Google books search on it. I think it should either go to AfD if not speedied, or rewritten properly. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Torch Relay

If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article and this Merger Contest. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

NRM

General vague occult concepts are not a "New Religious Movement"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea specifically what you are referring to, of course, as you didn't see fit to indicate any particulars. However, if you are speaking of material included in Category:New Age, which is specifically within the confines of both the Category:New religious movements and within the stated scope of the project, which I sincerely hope you looked at, I believe the material could reasonably be included and tagged. So, I believe, is the material included in the List of New Age topics, which specifically states that not all would fit within the Category:New Age. If you would be so kind as to indicate specifically what you are objecting to, of course, that would be a useful start to conversation. Personally, I have no specific interest in "claiming" any content which does not fall within the reasonable confines of the group, and am in fact simply following what others have already said in terms of placement in categories and lists. If certain material doesn't belong in such categories or lists, then I personally have no objections whatsoever to seeing them removed from the category or list, and reverting the tagging. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but for a lot less effort than it took you to write this screed, you could have easily looked at my recent edits history, and see that I was mainly referring to Tattva vision (secondarily to Eliphas Levi). I really don't see how either one falls within the NRM aegis... AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And it wouldn't have taken much effort for you to not you perjorative language yourself, would it? Oh, well. Tattva vision falls within the Category:Golden Dawn, a subcat of Category:New religious movements. Eliphas Levi and pretty much the entire Category:Occult tarot I myself had questions about, but figured the inclusion of that category in the Category:Golden Dawn, and also Category:New Age practices, was cause enough for their inclusion. And perhaps if you spent a bit more effort being clear yourself, as opposed to making vague statements and then criticizing others for calling on you for what could reasonably be seen as less than mannerly conduct, you wouldn't be in a position to act offended in the future. So, are you saying that the categorization of the articles or categories should be changed, or are you just commenting in general? John Carter (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's somewhat arguable as to whether the original Golden Dawn was a "NRM", but whether it was or not, that does not mean that every occult symbolism or practice with some connection to the Golden Dawn belongs under the NRM topic. The reason why I left a note on your talk page is that I really don't feel like following you around to articles not on my watchlist and removing the "NRM" tagging from their talk pages, so it would be better if you would adjust your own behavior in this matter... AnonMoos (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like following me around to every page, then why on earth did you seemingly believe that I would be obligated to follow you around, as your refusal to give an indication of what you were specifically talking about, as well as the rather huffy response to my commenting on it? Your behavior in this matter has hardly been what anyone would call laudable itself. I also specifically asked if you had any specific points you wished to raise. You responded with further ad hominems and no real response. I once againask you, as I believe civility would have indicated appropriate to most people from the beginning, that you point toward any particulars. If you are willing to engage in some useful discussion regarding specific issues, which for the most part you have not demonstrated to date, then I clearly would have no objections to engaging in such discussion. If you believe that some of the material included in the categories of the Order of the Golden Dawn don't belong in those categories, you are free to do that. However, your personal beliefs, however well informed, or uninformed, I don't know, they might be, are really not cause for such rather ill-behave attempts to seek to adjust the behavior of others. Again, if you have any specific content to discuss, please do so. Also, it might help if you bothered to look at the work group page in question. For what it might be worth, the New Reformed Orthodox Order of the Golden Dawn is specifically mentioned in one of the standard references as being a NRM, so I would think reasonably that material would unquestionably be included. And, again, if you seek to bring about adjustments in the behavior of others, it helps to engage in slightly more clear behavior yourself. John Carter (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have no particular knowledge in the field of occultism, then maybe you could have saved yourself and others a significant amount of wasted effort if you had refrained from mechanically and automatically classifying numerous articles in that area, without apparently paying close attention to the appropriateness of placing each individual article in those classifications... AnonMoos (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I have found the Order of the Golden Dawn listed in at least one of the encyclopedias of NRMs. It is bnecoming increasngly apparent to me tnat it is you who have a comparative lack of knowledge of even basic WP:CIVILITY, and maybe it would save a lot of effort on your part if you read WP:OWN, WP:CIVILITY, WP:TPB, and other such relevant pages. It might save you from making such pointless statements. Also, need I point out that the apparent most relevant project, WikiProject Occult, shows little if any evidence of recent activity? That being the case, I would have assumed that any editor truly interested in the content would have welcomed a bit more attention to the articles in any form. Was I mistaken in that assumption? If you personally however wish to continue to display the disregard for even the most basic rules of reasonable conduct, please follow this formal request to cease posting on this page. Your own conduct is becoming increasingly inexcusable. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Dear John Carter,

Thnk you for your support and assistance for the Saint Athanasius' page. It is a completely different page now and much more accurate and true to the History. I am still awaiting documents of the Council of Sardicia. MacOfJesus (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Religious movement sub article

• Landmark_Education#Characterization_as_religious_movement

Do you think it would be a good idea to create a new article with this material? Then this could be given a more extensive treatment in the sub-article, and a summarized version could be presented in the core article. I am not sure what the best name would be, so if you agree, perhaps you could suggest one? (Perhaps Landmark Education as religious movement?) Cirt (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay you make a valid point. For the time being we could just keep it as is, until there is a satisfactory article on the parent types of movements in a more general fashion. Cirt (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work so far at Self religion. Perhaps you could add some of the relevant groups (already discussed/sourced in the article you created) to the category Category:Self religions? Cirt (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi John

I appreciate your concern over my ability to contribute to TMWWBQ. In normal circumstances I would agree and continue but I'm afraid this article being edited by Dr Bailey's co-workers and supporters degrades it beyond being worth working on . It's no more than a sham set up to try and clear the good doctor of charges that have left his career in a shambles. My editing is against that sacred purpose and as such no matter what I did to improve the article and it will be removed . It is filled with false facts ( probably put back in by now ) , lies and blatant exclusions and manipulation of truth . When I came on there were no less than five full references to Dreger under different names trying to hid that she said it , misidentifying gay magazines as LGBT, Bailey sources writing reviews of the same book that they appear in  ! Unqualified reviewers who were Baileys collaborators . This article will never be honest or properly constructed. It should be about the book, not an apologists version of how Dr Bailey and his sainthood . Entire sections babbling on about Dregers "theories on the injustice to Bailey " and nothing on the book, or even to explain the IRB or what it meant to Dr Baileys approach to the research. After two years of trying to be neutral I totally lost neutrality so what's the point ? These aren't editors, they are Baileys sycophants and employees. Let them try to rewrite the truth, it will only delay the truth coming . Wikipedia is just a bunch of people enforcing their sourced point of view , it has nothing to do with fact. Thanks though. DarlieB (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Biblical Reference

Thank you for a very good and balanced page for Saint Augustine.

The Letter of Saint Paul: Saint Paul to The Romans is referred to at point {18}, but point 18 gives the overall reference to the Confessions of Saint Augustine, and the reference to Romans is missing! May I put it in: (Romans 13: 13-14). This is important as it refers to the point of his conversion. I will not edit or take away anything.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A favor

Could you please put Meher Baba on your watchlist for a while. I'm expecting a little tempest is developing. Editor User:Jones.liam is an enthusiastic proponent of the subject, and tends to go overboard with both OR and uncivil commentary. He likes to edit under IPs rather than as a registered user, and had . findings of sockpuppetry a while back. I'd appreciate a disinterested person keeping an eye on things for a few days. Thanks. --Nemonoman (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

done. John Carter (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the user has by now way, way overstepped 3RR, and things are getting ugly. You're a cooler head than me...hope you can do some good. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Very few people would call me a cooler head than them, but I'll see what happened there. I don't think I can block for 3RR until after due warning is given. if no warning has been given, I'll give the warning. If it has, or if there is evidence of sockpuppetry, I can try to do something there. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You know that parable about the speck in your brother's eye? I'm the guy with the log in his eye, the guy who can make a mess of even righteous and well-intentioned actions. It would be a blessing if the right actions you lay out above didn't come from me. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev arbcom case

Hi, I'm just wondering, the arbcom case against Dilip_rajeev seemed to have been archived [1] following a long period of inactivity. Was the case dropped or something?--PCPP (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

FalunDafaDisciple

We need someone quick to the rescue here to ban FalunDafaDisciple (talk · contribs). He has been doing destructive changes. Colipon+(Talk) 19:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Template question

John, if we add <includeonly>{{NOINDEX}}</includeonly> to the top line of {{mfd}} would that make all pages with mfd transcluded on them noindexed or only pages where it's subst'd or do I have it all wrong?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done MZM responded in the affirmative, I've implemented it without discussion. Not sure how long such things take to take affect with the search engines; of course, if it's more than seven days it's probably pointless. Thanks for the help.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi there. I'm shortly going to propose that this site be added as an WP:EL to both List of micronations and Micronations.

As the site includes the most extensive, up-to-date listing of micronations currently available from any source, I believe that it is directly relevant to the subject of those articles, and that its inclusion within them would significantly complement the existing content, and enhance their usefulness and the level of informativeness they communicate to the general reader.

However, before I iniate that discussion I firstly wanted to disclose that I'm the owner and primary author of www.listofmicronations.com. Secondly, in order to avoid any suggestion of WP:COI I intend to refrain from adding the link myself, should the eventual consensus support my proposal. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:WP Kuwait

Hi. This template has no paramters or programming. Would a delete and merger with Western Asia banner be better? Himalayan 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Any sage thoughts?

John, noticed you hadn't commented yet at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Community discussion of topic-ban and page-ban procedure urged, I'm curious what your thoughts are?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Monitoring page

If you could watchlist User:Mattisse/Monitoring' you could help me in dealing with future problems. I hope not to disappoint you again. Thanks! —mattisse (Talk) 23:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Rating LDS-related articles

Thanks so much for rating the various Latter Day Saint related articles on Wikipedia that I've been working on lately! It's always nice to get feedback from another editor as to where the article is relative to the rating scale. I concur with your ratings, in all but one instance: might I ask you why, specifically, you rated the Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite) article as "start" class? Not trying to start any quarrels here at all, but I think this article is definitely more than a "Start" class article--it's at least "Class C", if not "Class B" material, given the length, inclusion of an image (about the only thing we have for a Cutlerite church, as there's only one in existence!), and number and variety of references. I'm wondering if perhaps a mistake was made here, or if there is/are some specific issue(s) that need(s) addressing? Thanks!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

References/ Sources

Dear John Carter,

The page Saint Dismas has a request for references / sources. I'v put these in but I do not know how to do the numbering to the sources cited? I'v asked OIEnglish, but he is away! Have I done this bit correctly? so far?

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not user-friendly! Oh! for my pen and paper! MacOfJesus (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Warlordjohncarter~enwiki. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot requests.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:MuZebot will be ready to go in 5 hours time. MuZemike 00:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with Project City of Rome

The project has been abondoned. No one is running or promoting it. I have taken on some duties to keep it going but i am terribly under qualified to run a project alone. How can I get this project kick started again to get others involved in the inner workings of the project?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Would do a head check on me?

John, would you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Breakdown_at_Template:Infobox_Russian_inhabited_locality and let me know if you think I'm stepping on it. User:Tedder specifically refused to do exactly what I did on the grounds it would be wheel warring.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought for a moment that I might have been a little over confident in the use of tools.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Freemasonry and NRM category

Hi John, I note that you added Freemasonry to the NRM category (since undone by Vidkun). I would like you to think about the following question... is the category really appropriate?

I am not talking about the basic dispute over whether Freemasonry is or is not a religion in the first place. We both know the arguments for and against that... and I suspect we will disagree. No, I am asking whether Freemasonry qualifies as a new religious movement. Freemasonry dates back to at least the mid 1600s... which makes it as old or older than many Protestant denominations (Quakers, Southern Baptists, Methodists). To include Freemasonry in the Category you would have to expand the scope significantly. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello John

How have you been? Do you remember me?? :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear from you and see that everything is five. I think your work is as great as always. I came to you because I missed talking to some old Wiki-friend. I will need your help in the future (when I update the Zinta article I will obviously want to ask for some prose suggestions from you :)). I've also done nothing special of late, except for reverting vandalism and for an instance re-formatting the Filmfare Awards categories. They look much more organised today.

Now that you ask me, I think I do need some admin help from you as you are more familiar with WP:FILM. I would want to ask you to protect two film articles: Veer-Zaara and Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega. One individual with different IP accounts keeps messing up the credits order in these two articles, swapping places between the film's supporting actor and leading actor (he seems to be a fan of this particular actor because he gives her higher billing in both articles, while she is clearly the film's supporting actress). He does that continuously through different accounts and now he did that again. I do not want to revert him again because my edits could be mistaken for edit warring. Could you please semi-protect these two articles for a few days? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What I find funnier is that Veer-Zaara, where the title characters are Veer (played by Khan) and Zaara (played by Preity Zinta), has also been changed by this individual, although it's more than clear who the leading actors are. As you see, amazon.com, though I don't think it's the best way to go, does not even mention the film's supporting actress. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this guy will keep reverting through other accounts, but well, it will only give a reason to protect the article. Thank you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask you something. See the way I reformatted, for example the Filmfare Best Actress Award. It used to be like this and now it looks like this. I would want to change the lay out in the same way for Filmfare Best Story Award. But here I don't know what should be mentioned first, the writer or the film. For example:

• 2000 Honey Irani - Kya Kehna

Or

• 2000 Kya Kehna - Honey Irani

What do you think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

From the way I see the nominees being presented here, the writer is nominated for a film. So I should use the first option, yes? I was confused actually because the article about the Academy Award for Best Screenplay mentions the films and the the writers. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for the barnstar you awared me but I would like you to add it my own award page. I do not want to add it myself do to the fact my name would show up on the edit history page. --Mr. Unknown (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Saint Sava

I will start to write in nexf few days. For great introduction in subject I suggest chapter (more than 80 pages) about Saint Sava in Six Byzantine Portraits by Dimitri Obolensky. Maybe there are this book or chapter on googlebooks.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you for quich response :) --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of new religious movements

Please comment in the most recent thread here, "Companies Don't Belong On This List" it appears a user is ignoring WP:RS and WP:V, instead going by WP:IDONTLIKEIT to determine what should or should not be included on this list. Cirt (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, switched List of new religious movements to a pure alphabetical format, and removed wholly unsourced entries from the list. Could use your help adding some back, obviously only if properly cited. Cirt (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)