User talk:John Carter

This is John Carter's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 2011

wikipedia essay contest

Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at Nothing444's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

Time Times (2008-03)

	Time Times
Issue One • March 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier
News Recent Project News Time Times I, Zginder, have started this the official newsletter of the project. This newsletter is part of the Time Times, which has been created to update our members on the latest news at the project and on time. This first posting is late because I did not even come up with the idea until 2008-03-08. In the future I plan to have it ready to publish before the month begins. (If anyone should do things on time on Wikipedia it should be us, no?) Article count over 800! By my count we now have 873 articles but, will have many more soon. Less than 200 are assessed though, plenty of work for us to do. Portal:Time now working thanks to Yamara. Project member count reaches 11 members! Keep inviting all your WikiFriends. Remember: The project is now accessible from new shortcuts, WP:TIME and WP:TIMEPRO. Project gets a new look thanks to Yamara, if you have not seen it yet stop on by. Recent Time News The last day of February was leap day. Lets make this article featured before the next one comes around on 2012-02-29. Daylight saving time is in effect in the United States and a few other counties as of 2008-03-09. This article is our only featured article.
Archives • Newsroom
If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}.

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merging WikiProjects

John Carter, I am curious to know why several WikiProjects have never been merged. I am referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject United Arab Emirates. You left a message on my talk page in early February here: User talk:Leitmanp#UAE work group. I responded with this message: User talk:John Carter#WikiProjects relating to the UAE. Since you never responded, I assumed you agreed to my proposal of merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Abu Dhabi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharjah, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ajman, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fujairah, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ras al-Khaimah and Wikipedia:WikiProject Umm al-Quwain into WikiProject UAE.

If you disagree to this merger, can you at least make several changes? By going to Talk:Dibba and clicking "[show]," you can see that both WikiProject UAE and WikiProject Fujairah (which has an incorrect flag; how do you change it?) are listed. I think that since Fujairah is a part of the United Arab Emirates, it should not be counted twice. I propose that by listing an article in WikiProject Fujairah, it should automatically fall under WikiProject UAE. In other words, I think each WikiProject should be a sub-project of WikiProject UAE.

Since I am not involved in WikiProjects as much as you are, I am not sure what the traditional actions are taken regarding WikiProject COUNTRY along with WikiProject LOCAL DIVISION. I would be interested do hear your thoughts. Also, If I did not express myself clearly, please ask me to rephrase. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 03:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my delayed response. I have thought about this and might have a solution. We can leave both WikiProject Dubai and WikiProject Abu Dhabi alone due to their regional and international importance. The other five emirates (Sharjah, Ajman, Ras Al Khaimah, Fujairah and Umm Al Quwain) are not as widely known or influentional as Abu Dhabi or Dubai. Thses five emirates are jointly referred to as the “Northern Emirates.” Therefore, we could merge them into WikiProject Northern Emirates. How does that sound? As for WikiProject United Arab Emirates, it can be used for articles that deal with things that transcend the internal borders of the UAE or national issues. Let me know what you think. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if you saw the above message, so I am just dropping a line. Let me know what you think about my above proposal. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand what you meant, I think the projects should be completely separate. Just as all the WikiProjects for the states of the United States are separate from WikiProject United States, WikiProject Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Nothern Emirates should be separate from WP:UAE. Let me know if there is anything I can help you with. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 05:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken a look at Portal:Scientology/Wikimedia?

The logo's for each image are extremely expanded. I saw that you were the first one to edit it; but it's been messed up since that time. I think you should take a look at it. Lighthead ^þ 0:21, March 25 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not even part of that project but I was just browsing... Lighthead ^þ 0:32, March 25 2008 (UTC)

Time Times (2008-04)

	Time Times
Issue Two • April 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier
News Recent Project News Article count on at 961! We now have 961 articles but, will have many more soon as only a few are marked as in our project. At least 803 are unassessed though, plenty of work for us to do. Project member count reaches 12 members! Keep inviting all your WikiFriends. Award offered—Since 2008-01-05, Sharkface217 has offered a Barnstar to the editor who can expand the article Timeline. It certainly needs it, now that it has been disambiguated from Chronology: Go to the Timeline listing on the Awards page to find out Sharkface's minimum requirements! _{From the Time Portal} An IP added this funny comment to Portal talk:Time "I never though I would see the day mankind succeeds in creating a time portal." Recent Time News From the leap second article: in April 2008: ITU Working Party 7A will submit to ITU Study Group 7 project recommendation on stopping leap second[s]. Calendars met on March 21. It was Good Friday (Western Christianity, 2008); Purim ends at sundown (Judaism, 2008); Naw-Rúz in the Bahá'í calendar, Benito Juárez Day in Mexico, World Poetry Day.
Archives • Newsroom
If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}.

Template:TelevisionWikiProject

Hey John, I had to revert your changes on the 2nd to Template:TelevisionWikiProject. Something in the code caused it to break horrible if infobox=yes was checked. I can't decipher the new code enough to figure out what it was. Can you take a look and see if you can get that fixed so we can get the taskforce stuff back? Collectonian (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing, seems to be working well now. I just updated it to also put our FL class lists in an actual FL class category, however I can not seem to get the actual box to show FL and link to the category instead of showing FA. Do you know how to fix that? Collectonian (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About what the wikipedian saw

Sorry about the trouble. The page was actually meant to be on the department of fun group but I didn't have time to add it's link. It was not meant to offend anyone. I apologise for this taking your time. Please send me a message on your view via my talk page. This same message will be sent to the other nominators. I am sorry about all this. If this causes too much trouble I will delete the page myself. Sorry about not adding the link so you could find this message quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkside2000 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article length

hey john i was wondering are there exact guide lines for length of edits of article sections and if so could you point me in the right direction to find out about these guild lines thank you--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah edits done on the Race of ancient Egyptians article made by big dynamo seem to be to long and is drowning out the rest of the articles sections,i had left him a message if he could keeps his edits more short and to the point which how the article has been being edited in the past im not complainig about content just the length of the edits--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay i will just revert all bigdynamo edits and site on the talk page most of them are irelevent and dubious and edits and are to long winded also--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a user had reverted your revert i reverted it back but this seems to be going no where, bigdynamo is left me a message people are trying to hide facts etc claiming the page is biased, maybe the page should just be protected because it seems they dont want to compromise--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

john i made some argumenst on the talk page please come check them out you being an administrator and all i have also made some suggestions to thank you--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue here is whether the article as titled really addresses the topic. If the intent is to discuss the debate, then it should say that. Otherwise, the article really has no purpose other than to rehash a debate and I don't see where it really provides any value. The point of saying don't waste my time is that it takes time to research and reference the appropriate facts and if facts and evidence are not what is "desired" in this article, then what is the point? Sure, some sentences may be over winded, I agree, but you removed everything, which makes it seem less about specific details than a specific agenda. Big-dynamo (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for courtesy

Though I'm sure we'll have plenty of disagreement in the future, I would like to thank you for trying to work with me in a civil manner to resolve issues. KV(Talk) 19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbacks

Hi John, I'm writing to request rollback rights per seeing your name in this category. I'll be straight with you, i've only 550 odd mainspace edits so far and have only recently started using VandalFighter to start removing vandalism from Wikipedia but i'd be grateful for the rollback ability to make this even easier. I'd quite understand if you were to deny this request. Regards, CycloneNimrod (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite understandable, thanks for your help, i'll get round to using Twinkle now.. CycloneNimrod (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGF Challenge

The best answers yet! -- Dlabtot (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks that when faced with any problem on Wikipedia, Mr Carter's first reaction is to have a beer. If it is still unresolved after he has finished the beer, he has another one. Repeat until either the problem has gone away or one no longer cares... Hey, it's a better approach than what I've done in the past. -- llywrch (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Barnet, gay?

Any chance of getting a reference on this: Miguel Barnet? The article makes no mention of it, and although I can find a lot of LGBT lit referencing him as a source, I can't find anything that actually outs him. Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've gone ahead and removed that. We've gotta be careful with biographies of living people. Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

werdnabot

Werdnabot appears to be archiving to your old username still. Is this intentional? (Obviously it doesn't matter, as long as you're aware of it.)

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Want to close this MfD?

Hey John, I was about to close Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:GTA_Ganxtaize/Blog, when I noticed that I asked a question and probably ought to pass off on it even though I didn't take a position still don't have one. Any interest in closing it out? --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you take a look at my question at the bottom of WT:MFD regarding finding a bot? Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved pages

Well, I was trying to take your advice, I hadn't dealt with such subpages before. As an admin, could you delete the original userified pages and move them back there? KV(Talk) 03:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

John, I saw this edit and wondered 1) did you agree to this prod? 2) why is anyone but you removing non-vandalism from your userpage? --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't agree to the prod, and actually didn't notice the deletion until the link first showed red. I do understand though that the exact notability of the source probably wasn't particularly well established in what I had written. As for why it was removed, it shouldn't have been, and I have restored it. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just remember that any reasonable request to restore the article must be granted; you could at the very least have it restored to userspace but I'd support it's restoration as an article though we should do some digging for sources.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. All it basically was though was a list of which hagiographies were sourced from Holweck to it, though. I can probably put it back together fairly easily in userspace when the book gets back from the school's binders. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela

Rid of Template:WikiProject Venezuela ? It has no assessments on it, and there are duplicate categories for "WikiProject Venezuela" and "Venezuela articles". Could you fix this please to avoid confusion. Can you change to South America template to "Wikiproject Venezuela" articles. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any recommendations for what should be done with it? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for your reply. I'll stick to using the south america one for now until it is sorted. If it had proper categories using the seperate banner it might not be so bad, but as it is, its a pretty pointless template. I'll leave a note at the WP:Venezuela page. Your comments would also be much apprecated. Saludos ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm nobody has commented on the project talk page in 6 months. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame though that is it so inactive. I was under the impression it had many natives on here building content. Many of these seem to have left or edit very rarely. Visiting yesterday I realised how much needs doing, not only in tagging and organization but in getting high priority article sin the countries up and running. Given the huge interest in football in Latin America, I can't believe the national team members don't even have articles yet!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Heres a novelty. Churches in Tonga. I found these lurking on tongan wiki. They have photos too!! now thats what I call global. Perhaps there is a tongan wikiproject? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. The Tongans have one category labelled "Religion" LOL!! here ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, I knew about Mr. Rahul's new image agreement before it was even validated, he wanted it kept secret to avoid the Sarvagnya brigade trying to start attacking it. Very good images, but Zinta is always stunning in my eyes. Yes it is amazing how dominated some of the Polynesian islands are by Christianity -the missionaries did pretty good didn't they!. An uncle of mine Wesley Harris lived in Tonga for several years as part of the Salvation Army. He was one step away from making it as general (world leader) of the Salvation Army.[reply]

Yes he was head of Canada and Bermuda division during the 1990s. He is my late grandfather's brother, (my mum's uncle) so is a great uncle (and he has a Blofeld baldie lol). My mums side of the family are very Salvation Army based. I visited him in 1993, where he was living in Toronto. During the holiday he took us up to a lake in northern Ontario where the Salvos had a youth training camp and it was one of the most beautiful places I've ever stayed at. I stayed in his luxury house on the lake leased by the army and would go canoeing on the lake every morning. He currently lives in Melbourne and attends the same citadel as Eva Burrows. I've met Paul Rader also back in the 90s. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway fingers crossed with Zinta. In my view its been five months delayed but I have always believed it would get there eventually. I;m sure you feel the same. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI thread on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scientology

Can you please comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scientology ? You are the resident admin and expert on WikiProjects, not to mention WikiProjects specific to this type of subject matter. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I give up

Clearly, Portal:Hermetica is the broader name per guidelines, yet I can't get it to work right either. Back in 2006 when I created Portal:Occult I didn't have any of these problems and it's enough for me to never touch another portal again. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like them deleted but, I'm still waiting to see if KV wishes to work on the Hermetica one, as he doesn't know it exists yet. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its rather obvious at this point that they should be deleted. Portal:Hermeticism is the way to go. It fits the guideline for portals and is currently the more broader subject. But I won't be creating the portal :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

No problem John!! Glad I could be off some help!! --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 18:00, 18 April 2008

Not a problem

I wouldn't say I'm very knowledgeable at all, but you brought my eye to it so I called it as I saw it. I would say glad to be of assistance, but that doesn't really capture the way I feel about it, or indeed the way one ought to feel about it. Hiding T 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Profit

Is a semi-protect in order at this point, or some other measure? It seems quite cut and dry as far as the responses at the RfC, but I am not opposed to just letting the RfC run its course. Cirt (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well what you did is all appropriate but you might want to also consider that both 86.144.187.42 (talk · contribs) and 81.154.198.163 (talk · contribs) are probably the same as Wogglelump (talk · contribs). Even if they are not all the same, they could all do with a similar notice on their talkpages. Cirt (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an eye on things. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gogel

You were quick off the mark, assessing Isaac Jan Alexander Gogel. Thanks for the criticism. I have spruced up the article a bit. Hope you like it this way. I think I have squeezed the stone dry as far as his childhood is concerned though :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Portal:Warriors

That's fine, I'll keep the Portal in my userspace. As for content, I believe enough articles will be created to sastify the +30 rule for portals. With articles for all the books that have been/will be released this year, there will be 30 articles (I think). Also, I'll be making some articles about the illustrators of the series and other related people. Thanks, Shrewpelt (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Zinta consult

Hey John!

A few months back, Zinta won ownership rights for a cricket team based at Mohali in an IPL bid for $76 million (!!!).

As a result, over the past months, she has frequently been featured in the press. But I still don't know if this new activity deserves a new sub-section in the Other work section, and quite frankly, I'm afraid to start a new section (because I'm afraid to ruin the article with a badly written stuff pre-FAC!). She received many positive reviews for her new work and has been described as "actress turned businesswoman" by journalists etc. You can see this recently published article by The Australian, it covers that pretty well. Today her team is going to have its first match BTW.

As of now, I have only three sentences in the In the media section:

Along with Ness Wadia and others, Zinta in 2008 became the owner of the Mohali Twenty20 team of Indian Premier League. The group paid a total of $76 million to acquire the franchise. The team was later named as Kings XI Punjab.

So, my question is: A) Do you think it has to be written and expanded in a new section? B) would you rewrite these three sentences? :) (after the first FAC, I'm very insecure. I feel I'm a bad copyeditor :( ).

Sorry if I'm bothering too much. My best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey John! Thanks for the reply. I see you were quite busy...

Tell me please, what do you think about --

Along with Ness Wadia and others, Zinta in 2008 became the owner of the Mohali Twenty20 cricket team of (the) Indian Premier League. The group paid a total of $76 million to acquire the franchise, and have since renamed the team Kings XI Punjab.

(I'm just trying to keep the word "owner" because it has a better connotation!!) How does it sound?

And what do you think about the new image? :) Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, me again :) Last time!

John, and what would you say about

"won ownership rights for the Mohali Twenty20 cricket team of the Indian Premier League."

Or

"won the Indian Premier League bid for the Twenty20 cricket team based at Mohali."

? Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Thanks for the help! I really appreciate that. I'd like to take it to FAC, but the peer review is not closed yet. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian encyclopedia

Do you know something about Canadian encyclopedia? Is it RS? I am confused. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want to use it for the article Commonwealth of Learning. It has an excellent page on COL. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Papua New Guinea

I just made myself a member. I've edit the page a little bit, to make it look better. I was wondering if you wanted to get the project running properly?

for starters could you fix this - {{User WikiProject Papua New Guinea}} i just think it would be cool for the project to become good Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well just let me know when you have some free time and we can really get it going. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO e-mail

MONGO has started contributing to the case. If you feel the email sent to you is of any relevance, I suggest you forward the email to arbcom-l, and note that you have done so on the evidence page, without disclosing the contents of the email. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NovelsWikiProject

[1] This made its way into the template: "[[Category:Christianity articles with comments|{{PAGENAME}}]]" leaving odd categories on some novel talk pages. --maclean 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you change it to [[Category:Novel articles with comments|{{PAGENAME}}]] (without the "s")? This appears to be the original intended category, which already has many articles and is named consistently with other categories related to the Novels WikiProject. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 03:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar

I stumbled onto the WikiProject categorization situation by accident and dove in -- probably over my head. I learned a lot in the process, and it's wonderful to know that my efforts are appreciated. Stepheng3 (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hogenakkal falls

Hi John! Sorry to be bothering you now and again. This is once again about the waterfalls article and guess what the issue hasn't died yet. When you find time can you go through the discussions at Talk:Hogenakkal_Falls#Request, Talk:Hogenakkal_Falls#Inconsistent_lead and Talk:Hogenakkal_Falls#Section_on_Water_Project_need_to_be_removed. The editor has been changing his stand as you can see, but with one goal as to get the section removed. For the record I have mentioned that on his talk page here. I have also asked for Editor assistance and left a message on one of the editor's talk page (yes copied and pasted from the email ... hee hee). [2]. If it is not too much trouble and not inappropriate for you to comment, can you let what you think now of this issue. I do agree that people change their mind and if you have after your email to me, you are free to express that. All I want is to get this issue solved and move on. Thanks Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 07:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPReligion

Hi John. I recently made some edits to Template:WPReligion. I mainly added the Template documentation, but also edited the template a little. As indicted on this page, everything seems to be working. User:Badbilltucker has the most edits to the template, but he has not edited since January 2007. Would you please review the Template documentation and the template workings and make any changes you think necessary. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anson Chan and Donald Tsang

I notice that you tagged the above articles on my watch list. These people are not missionaries nor figures in the religious world in Hong Kong (nor anywhere else in the world for that matter), but are politicians and former civil servants, who happen to have declared a religious faith and are regularly seen at church. I think that if we were to so tag articles of all similar individuals for Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, the project would be potentially massive and get sidetracked from the main objectives of the focus on the development of religion. Comments? Ohconfucius (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral.

Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations.

Thank you again, VanTucky

when do we use the term rev in the lead of an article?

and when not i see some reverends have the title rev. in the lead and some not is there any formalized manual of style re this?--YY (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Will you please adopt me? Rohit Reddy (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hey John!! How have you been?

Well, the Zinta FAC has been quite quiet...

Now there is one editor who thinks that having written a number of columns doesn't make Zinta a columnist. I tend to agree, but what do you think?

My best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment John. Hadn't you been aware of the FAC before?

I would like to ask you regarding this one

"In addition to being an actress, Zinta has written a series of popular columns for BBC News Online South Asia, and has been (is) a regular stage performer"

What do you think? Also, what's the better way, "acting" or "being an actress"? And in the stage performer part, what would you write, "and has been a stage..." or "is a stage"?

Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed reply. Not only does she consider herself a performer, she has also recently signed a new contract for a new world tour with the Bachchans, called "The Unforgettable"

So I'm going with:

"In addition to acting, Zinta has written a series of popular columns for BBC News Online South Asia, and has been a regular stage performer"

Is that OK? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or "In addition to acting, Zinta has written a series of popular columns for BBC News Online South Asia, and is a regular stage performer" ? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't say performing on stage means acting. They primarily dance and sing (I mean, lip-sync huh!), although there are some sequences of comic scenes. So I don't really think performing on stage is a sort of acting. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is some kind of everything, dance, singing, acting... Everyrhing that is usually expected to be "performed" on stage (you can see on YouTube LOL!).

I think the definition can be added but not in the lead, in the section itself.

Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it was exactly what you said! Thanks for the great help John! Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an image of hers in one of her stage shows, which can be added. The image is free, but seems a bit over the top. Don't you think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thanks for your reply. Regarding WikiProject India, I would like to upload some pictures that I have photographed with my camera. I would also like to review the articles and, if popssible, rate them. I need help regarding formatting the articles to make them look better and as I am new to Wikipedia, I would like someone experienced to take me along for sometime till I gain the momentum. Once again, thanks for the reply.

Rohit Reddy (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your reply. Well, you could guide me in your strong areas. Could you tell me the meaning of fair use rationale of any image? Well, I encountered this in the talk page of an article(NIT Srinagar) that I edited a little. I could also use some help regarding formatting of articles.

One more thing I would like to know is, is there any software that I can use to see the way any Wiki code affects a page while offline?

Rohit Reddy™ (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Northern Emirates

Since you appear to only keep track of messages at the bottom of your talk page, I will re-add this message here:

If I understand what you meant, I think the projects should be completely separate. Just as all the WikiProjects for the states of the United States are separate from WikiProject United States, WikiProject Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Nothern Emirates should be separate from WP:UAE. Let me know if there is anything I can help you with. Preceding comment originally added by Leitmanp (talk | contributions) at 05:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC) at User talk:John Carter#Merging WikiProjects. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Sharjah, Ajman, RAK and UAQ articles do not receive a lot of traffic, it would not hurt to keep them as sub-projects. Maybe in the future, those emirates will increase their economic importance and influence. Keeping them separate, although a part of another WikiProject, would be okay. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hi John! Just thought I should bring a few things to notice for you and ShefeildSteel. There is this User:Skbhat who has been adding things to the article. I would like him to participate in the RfC to sort the issue once and for all, because I do have concerns on the references that person is providing as I have mentioned in the user's talk page. Is it acceptable for Naadapriya to encourage [3] it when we on an RfC? Cheers Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 09:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixar Work Group Question

In regards to the Pixar work group you created, Pixar articles such as Cars (soundtrack) and Die-cast Pixar Cars, among others, I don't think are in the scope of WikiProject Animation. Unless all products, soundtracks, and misc. articles are considered part of WP Animation, is there anyway that it can say something like "animation=no" so that all Pixar articles can be included in the work group? And have the actual quality ratings for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Pixar articles by quality statistics? Thanks, -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geology-Hogenakkal falls

Hey again! How many projects are you on mate? lols..
Here are the papers I have fished out. [4] [5] [6] [7]
The last one is a book and there seems to be one more old paper which I believe can't be online. Srinivasan V (1977) Journal of the Geological Society of India. See if you can do something about it. Cheers Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 17:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scriveners

(Was trying to think of a unique header for the page : )

I think where you and I might be disagreeing is that you want the people who formulate the text to be the same as the reviewers, and I don't. I think there should be at least "some" divide there.

Compare to the recent request of arbcomm to oversee/start a committee concerning irc.

Same here. Just that we might have a WikiProject/panel/committee in place to do such writing, or can be createed from a pool of volunteers, or whatever.

But having those who review the policy being the ones solely responsible for writing the policy just seems like a bad idea if we don't have to. And, we don't have to : )

Make sense?

Why'd I post this here? Because regardless of the outcome of that discussion, your idea, when "split away" as I suggest above, would be an excellent proposal to discuss. (See also this.) But it stands a good chance of being "lost in the shuffle" as we've often seen with these discussions. - jc37 19:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Saints

I think we need more gender balance in the selections. Email me if you want to explore this further ... :-D --evrik ^(talk) 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts? --evrik ^(talk) 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troubling edit summary

Having falsely accused Geogre of a personal attack over an edit summary, I note that you posted this in response: [8]. As an acknowledged expert in rude and obnoxious user interaction, I have to say that the summary you left was breathtakingly rude. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Having a hissy fit" stikes me as a personal attack, I have to think, doesn't it? To accuse me of that, when I was trying to indicate, over the objections of the parties, that the self-acknowledged refusal to include data relevant to the subject which was in the single source they used, but which was not included and had tags requesting additional sourcing and content removed because, based on the single source, they determined neither the additional content in that source nor the additional sources was relevant, struck me as being possibly particularly obnoxious as well, particularly when they themselves clearly state that the article is not complete. And, yeah, I've used the same source in the past as well. It should also be noted that I first went to the article after a message posted on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity page based on the same concern, by another editor treated just as rudely by them. So, basically, we had individuals saying that, based on limited knowledge from that single source, they were qualified to say that content included in the only source they knew, which was apparently found relevant enough to be included in that source, somehow doesn't need to be included in our article, as that source evidently has too much "fancruft". Personally, I can't think of any more obnoxious content I have ever encountered yet, and that's saying a lot too. But I acknowledge that my temper and desire for complete information got the better of me in this case. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikimedia

I'm not aware of being (or being related to) an official with wikimedia. Yaan (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican assessment

Hi, I left a note on the assessment talk page, but I don't know if anyone saw it.

Could you add Sermons of Dean Swift, Sermons of Laurence Sterne, and Drapier's Letters (the final one was written when Swift was Dean of St. Patrick's, and it uses a lot of religious imagery that appeals to Church of Ireland members).

Also, could you ask if anyone could help provide two or three lines cited that could explain some of the common basis of an Anglican sermon (or Anglican service in general). I have a few resources, but I am not an Anglican myself, so I don't know how mainstream they would be. Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Quorty

Please do something about the user Quorty. What bugs me is the tone he takes in every dispute. Without much investigation, he slams every tool at his disposal at articles and users who work on them. Every user page request is mean-spirited, no one is ever given benefit of the doubt. I post now from my IP so I won't get beat up by him on my registered page -- in an hour or so there will be a marker put on the IP page showing where it's from and implying some kind of misdoing or accusing it outright.

Quorty is a very powerful user, and there's really nothing regular joes like me can do about his nonsense. Is there anything a higher end user like you can do? Or somebody, just to get him to dial it back a notch or two? It's not the Spanish Inquisition -- it's a bunch of people working for free on a community encyclopedia project. I know I'm super-discouraged from creating new and notable content just for dread of having to spend my time wrangling with him instead of actually working on Wikipedia. 72.241.98.90 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to send me an e-mail, if you wish. It would help a lot to know what specific pages and actions are being discussed. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two sovereigns...

...because I always pay my bills. Don't you ever complain about money again, do you hear me? :-D

Meanwhile, I am quite concerned about the progress in the matter of governance reform; there are hardly two people sharing the same opinion, and the whole discussion is quite disorganised. As has been expected from the beginning, the very problem which this proposal has set out to combat is the one which will likely become its undoing. Waltham, The Duke of 20:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV question

Dear John,

I appreciate your remaining uninvolved. Would you perhaps be willing to help me understand NPOV and RS policy considering this question? If not, please ignore.

Suppose that on a particular (scientific?) topic 'X' there exists a majority view 'A', and a minority view 'B'. Now suppose that view 'B' has a fairly large lay constituency, and also quite a number of prominent adherents. As I understand WP:NPOV, this would allow for us to describe X from viewpoint A, and giving viewpoint B appropriate and fair treatment — taking care not to give undue weight. Am I correct so far?
How would you feel when a wikipedia editor who is himself a subscriber to hypothesis A starts deleting information from article X which is damaging to hypothesis A but undamaging to viewpoint B, claiming that leaving the information in would be giving undue support to viewpoint B, thus misleading our readers?
The correctness of the information in question is undisputed, but ofcourse, presenting only part of the information can be misleading as well, and we need to be on our guard here, I agree.

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question you posted on Xiutwel's talk page, John, Xiutwel was topic banned for 2+ years of tendentious editing on 9/11-related articles. You can read the details of the ban here. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to give you a specific example, but the ban is in the way. Can I have your permission to write it here, on your talk page, or via e-mail? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution in Pakistan

I have added much more information and expanded this article significantly. Can you please reassess the article. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Dear John Carter, I like the Round In Circles template you mentioned on the H. falls page. You know what would be great is a "Groundhog Day" template for when the round-in-circles loops over a longer time period. (For example, if persons bring up the same issues with a 2-3 month space in between.) One could reference the talk pages for the discussion loop (hopefully) to prevent a re-occurrence of Groundhog Day. Do you know how to create templates? This would be fun. Renee (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I posted a support statement there. Here is an adorable picture if people believe it's worthwhile. Renee (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe reception of a new template is lukewarm or can we go for it? (BTW, you and Job of the old testament have a lot in common regarding this, I can't believe it's still going on!) Renee (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Film Music

Hello, I've re-initiated discussion about merging this WikiProject into WikiProject Films since the merge tags have been sitting around for a while. You can see the new discussion here, and I've pulled up your explanation from last March. Feel free to add onto what you've said before and suggest any proper course of action. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time Times (2008-05)

	Time Times
Issue Three • May 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier
News Recent Project News Article count at 1074! At least 911 are unassessed though, plenty of work for us to do. Award offered—Since 2008-01-05, Sharkface217 has offered a Barnstar to the editor who can expand the article Timeline. It certainly needs it, now that it has been disambiguated from Chronology: Go to the Timeline listing on the Awards page to find out Sharkface's minimum requirements! _{From the Time Portal} History of timekeeping devices reaches Good Article Status —On April 7 the history of time keeping article became a GA. This is our only top importance article to reach this prestigious status. This was only possible with the dedication of the Tzatziki Squad. They are continuing to work on the article to reach Feature Article status. History of timekeeping devices in Egypt was a DYK —The article appeared on the Main Page on April 8. With this text: "...that despite Herodotus's claim that the sundial was invented in Babylon, the oldest known example is from Egypt?" This also was only possible thanks to the Tzatziki Squad. Recent Time News None that I know of.
Archives • Newsroom
If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}.

Request for mediation

Dear John Carter, I have been running into a difficulty with an editor Special:Contributions/Zeuspitar who appears to constantly engaging in disruptive editing of the page dedicated to specific views of Gaudiya Vaishnava and other groups such as bhagavata - svayam bhagavan. I would humbly ask for your mediation on the issue, as he was just a year ago a Gaudiya and now he is attacking my edits based on his POV, which is similar but different to major Hindu groups. I have already posted a complaint in the relevant board (Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts - User alert User:Zeuspitar:) before and I was attacked by him on [[9]]. I would appreciate if you can mediate us, he himself suggested mediation in his last comments of the Talk:Svayam Bhagavan. BTW article is coming out quite good, and your suggestions on merging or changing it are very welcome. Wikidās ॐ 09:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John

How have you been?

User:Sarvagnya has opposed on the Zinta FAC. Among other comments (which are clearly not valid), he claims boxofficeindia.com is not a reliable source, while it's clearly reliable. It's a joke. Major and famous newspapers like The Times of India, Hindustan Times use it as a source of information, so why can't Wikipedia? You can see the links on the FAC. It's tiresome. What do you say? Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, John.

John, Dwaipayanc created a new section for the IPL cricket team: "Ownership of Indian Premier League team". It's good, but seems too long for the ToC in comparison to the other section headings. My suggestion was to rename it "Ownership of IPL team." Dwai thinks it's better to leave the full IPL title, because it's not as famous as other titles like UNICEFF and PETA. So I thought it would be more appropriate if we changed it to "Ownership of IPL cricket team" or "Ownership of cricket team" in order to make it clearer, because the IPL itself is IMO not really an important detail for the heading; the matter is IMO the fact that she owns a cricket team. Also, when we say "Ownership of IPL cricket team", I think it gives the clarification of what an IPL actually is, so the acronym is clear and ther's no need for a long section heading.

What do you think? What's the best way to name the section? I just get a bit annoyed by such a long heading in the ToC, which makes it huge and unpleasant. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I'll take care of. Didn't notice that...

I'm now working on the last para in the career section. Here's how it looks as of now:

As of April 2008, Zinta has completed shooting for Jahnu Barua's drama Har Pall, as well as Deepa Mehta's Canadian movie Heaven on Earth, an English-Punjabi language drama based on the real story of a NRI battered wife who bore years of domestic violence. Another confirmed project, Sameer Karnik's adventure film Heroes, is scheduled for release in June 2008.

Is it OK? Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the Heaven on Earth part is a bit complicated. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just think Tony's comments are unclear. He says "'characters of a diverse nature'—five words could be just two." - what does he mean? To change it to diverse characters?

And what does he mean when he says "'bringing a change in' could be just one word."? "Changing"?

Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He says "range" is a bit vague... Do you have a way to clarify that? Or maybe another word would look better there? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user

Replied about gadget

Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at User talk:Pyrospirit/metadata.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And sorry about the delay in replying; I must have missed it on my watchlist. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Change name from "Sex work work group" to "Sex work task force"?

Polling all members of the group to see if they are OK with changing the name of the group. Poll is here. – Iamcuriousblue (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

race and ancient egyptians

hey john when the dumbbot removed the fully protection temp it also removed the semi protect temp can you put the semi protect back,thank you--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelCPrice

Since you've had contact with MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs) and because you seem knowledgable about the general area, I wonder if I could trouble you to keep an eye on Talk:List of people who have disappeared#Jesus. I am currently in a dispute with this editor over whether Jesus should be included on the list. The editor has reverted twice in the last two days with minimal discussion and, from what I can tell, seems to be pushing a fringe view of the Resurrection and/or the early Church.

I've read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites and I don't much like what I see there. After reading the case, it's unclear to me whether the one-revert-per-week-per-article limit applies to just the Ebionites article or to any article on a related topic. I'm not sure any admin action is warranted at the present time, but thought it was worthwhile to give you a heads up to nip any potential problems in the bud.

Thanks, ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burma

Well to put things in perspective see the missing settlements in Bhamo Township with comprises of 1/18th of Kachin State. There are 14 states/divisions in Burma. So basically your timesing this by 18 and then multiplying by 14 and that justs Burma!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Directory

Hi again! Regarding the directory reorganization, I thought my edit should not be reverted. Like I have said before, the massive amount of sections makes the loading process slow. Furthermore, the project directory is meant for editors not familiar with WikiProjects to use. Personally I think my version was much more organized.

Also, I did not remove any project from the directory, instead I simply removed the ones that appear too much. For example, there were sections that contained only one project and another project that also is listed under twenty more sections. I simply combined all of those sections under one single section, which makes it much more organized, IMO. Since there were no removal of active projects from the directory, may I humbly ask for the permission to revert?

In the edit summary you talked about a certain "format." Is the format simply the difference between =text= and ==text==?--Jerrch 23:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Workgroup; SWaminarayan

I noticed your comments about the workgroup. We should have editors soon, and we plan to have more artcles by te end of this summer. Probably another 50-60. We will have close to 150 then so we will wait off until then. Thanks for you comments. Juthani1 01:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also was wondering if you could give me rollback rights. Juthani1 01:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:X Elections

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

AN/I

Sorry John Carter, I did want to take your advice on mediation rather than AN/I, but the other party doesn't seem to be interested in that. I don't think I can make any good out of the mediation if the other one doesn't want to co-operate with that. Sorry Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 11:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I shall do that, but I would also like to point out that Naadapriya is already accusing me of starting a pramature RfC. BTW, does no other admin look into the AN/I? I am very disappointed with the way the two AN/I's I have seen is being neglected. Anyways, thanks for your help. Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 18:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

John which looks better the above or below? MOst people have no idea where these places ar ein Norway and I believe the locator map is a progresssion. Please tell me what you think thanks

Any thoughts on this? Hey its my birthday today!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiayah. Yes I absolutely agree with you that the national map looks better but the four images after each other makes it too long. We're trying to come to something where the Infobox Kommune can include the national map and not make it overly big, hopefully something in between. I've become so accustomed to changing things in most africa, latin and asian countries where few people seem to care what you do and you try to edit a european country and suddenly an army of people start flashing at you (I don't mean bits and pieces if you catch my drift). The Swiss didn't take to kindly to my implementations either! Hopefully we can work something out but I am keen to standardize things by country. Sheeks I'm half way to 30 now. Can't believe it is May already ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hogenakkal Falls mediation

Thanks for adding yourself as a party. I am almost done with my wiki time for today :(. I will try to repost the issues based on content on the mediation page either tonight or tomorrow morning. In the mean while, if you think it is appropriate and possible, can you put the issues down on the mediation page please! I will strike off the earlier issues soon after I get back. Cheers Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I somehow convinced my wife to go to wikipedia again for this evening and now I have modified the disputes. If you intend to add more, I am assuming you can do it, as long as you leave a signature. I may be wrong too. Are we required to leave messages in the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu Wikiproject pages to alert users to take part in the discussion? I can't do that unless it is required since otherwise I will be caught guilty of WP:CANVASS am assuming. Thanks for your help so far. Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 19:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done on the border issue. I will alert the mediator too. Cheers Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Juthani1

Thanks for your reply, and I didn't know that it made a new page. I will fix that. I will consider setting up Twinkle. I don't think anyone at wikiproject Hindusm would object and a lot of people actually agree. Thanks for your great reply and all of your help. Juthani1 18:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colorizing background of photographic portrait

Hi John. As a BLP expert, perhaps you could weigh in about a BLP controversy over at the John McCain talk page? Here's the issue, neutrally described: the McCain article has for a long time started with a photo of McCain that is a cropped version of his official photo. Both this cropped version and the original official photo include black clothing on a black background. Is it okay to change the background to blue, or would that violate some BLP policy? Presumably, cropping the image does not violate any BLP policy. Thanks in advance for any comments you care to make about this (pro or con).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for contacting DC.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make sure you're aware that a request has been made for Peer Review of the McCain article.[10]Ferrylodge (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your role in Hogenakkal Falls

I guess you became active in HK falls article on request by Wikiality123. At random your comments were interpreted by Wikiality123 as that from Admn. Please clarify whether your comments are as an editor or Admn or both. It will be helpful to know which comment is under what role for e.g one made on 13:22, 29 April 2008. I am asking these clarifications since I have never faced this situation during my tenure in Wikipedia. The major concern I have is that your comments were mostly towards me than contents of comment. Also your comments repeatedly pushed for unwarranted blocking. Please note I do not have an issue about your participation in the article. But I need clarification about the role. Thanks. Naadapriya (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not seem to me to be aware of policies regarding this matter. An admin is an admin, it is impossible to separate the function. And you make a serious mistake in your own statements above. The content which you were seeking to include was not acceptable given your own failure to produce evidence to support its inclusion. Despite this fact, you repeatedly engaged in unacceptable behavior, which was noted not only by myself but others as well. Such misconduct is a violation of several policies and guidelines, and is a potentially blockable offense. I did not by the way ever push for unwarranted blocking, as I never "pushed" for blocking. I was indicating that your behavior was such that you could be seen as qualifying for a block. I am sorry that you are apparently unable to perceive the difference, but that problem is not mine.

In fact, I regret to say that your possibly willful misrepresentation of the situation as it existed at the time, coupled with your regular refusal to abide by policies and guidelines, which was noted by others as well, hardly enhances your credibility, rather the opposite in fact. You have been repeatedly advised to actually review our extant policies and guidelines so that you would have a better idea of how to conduct yourself than you have to date displayed. I have to assume from your statements above that you had as of that writing still not done so. I therefore suggest to you once again that you try to familiarize yourself with our standards of conduct, so that you do not continue to break them. John Carter (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities, towns and villages in Thailand

Hello Mr. Carter. When you log in I need you help with something. I wish to move all of the articles in this category with have the ending ....town back to the original pages and then to leave a notice at the top of them e.g

this article is about the town of .... For the article on the province of the same name of which it is part of please see .... Province

There is no reason if this is carried out why any settlements in Thailand should be called ....town as this is the incorrect title for the article. However I've tried moving the pages back but it blocks me from doing so. Could you please delete the original page redirects to the provinces articles so the stray pages can be moved back. Now if I had admin tools I could have done it myself tut tut.

E.g Chachoengsao town should be moved back to Chachoengsao rather than redirecting to the province. Instead a notice should be written at the top to link to the provincial article ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I'm back. Try moving Chachoengsao town to Chachoengsao and you'll see you can't. The only way it can be done is to remove the Chachoengsao page from the database, and then moving the page afterwards when its been cleared, The only other way I can do it is to redirect but this of course would lose the page history and is likely to cause complaints. Have a go at deleting the Chachoengsao page entirely from wikipedia. ONce this has been done try moving the Chachoengsao town page to Chachoengsao again -it should work. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly thats perfect. Could you quickly move the others in the category which have the ....town ending on them back to the original names. Somebody moved them originally when they shouldn't have. Cheers ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I can't do that see Buriram now. I think it is because you have admin tools you somehow managed to removed it entirely. Putting a deletion tg on it in a normal account doesn't do the trick ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try moving Buriram town. I;m certain the page actually has to be deleted. If I had admin tools I could sort in out in two minutes ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally I have the move option as everybody does but when I tried to move it this following message comes up:

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.

Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move.

Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text.

I am certain that if you have and admin account it permits you to do it even when the page is there. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I was an admin I could have done it automatically. It's times like this I could really do with being an admin ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk? Heheh. Well its at times where it seems silly I have to ask admins to do things which I could do within minutes myself. For me adminship is less about ruling over others (which some people on here seem to think it is) and more about having tools to make important maintenance changes to the project. Given that I now have nearly 150,000 wee edits (World Number 3) (if you;ll pardon the SPECTRE reference) it does seem strange I haven't been given such tools ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is it has its positive aspects but part of the reason I've turned it down up until now is because I don't want people asking me to have to sort out all sorts of vandalism or intervene in a stressful situation or block some editor several times a day as it may interrupt my work. If I was just given certain tools I;d be happy to help sort any problems from time to time as long as it doesn't affect my contribution to the encyclopedia ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that exactly how I feel about it. What concerns me is some people who barely have 5,000 edits think oh I want to be an admin so I can be really powerful and order others around, and we can both know these those kind of editors a mile off, the intentions of some people who crave adminship really is very suspicious. I on the other hand would rather be able to use any further tools that will make my encyclopedia editing even more efficient than at present. I don't mind stepping in occasionally if there is trouble or am ask to comment but doing that sort of thing day in day out and spending most of my time at admin noticeboards and general lawyering (like many do) isn't what I'm here for. Probably if I was asked I would say one of my specialist areas would be new page patrolling and speedying deleting any poor new entries. Perhaps that might stand me in good stead as people can see I'm the last person who would abuse the tools, but on certain areas on the admin side of wiki I must admit I only have a basic knowledge of the different pages, to date I have focused almost entirely on the encyclopedia content as much as possible and in a way have ignored much of what goes on, but intentionally so as what I've seen at certain admin pages I have been pretty disgusted with ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally got around to sorting out the Mexican town categories. The text in most of the Mexican articles is absolute twaddle isn't it. Hardly any of them are referenced well or wikified properly and most of them seem to have been hit by uneducated IP addresses. I was very disappointed with the state on some of the Thailand articles too. Sigh sigh ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Heres an extract on a town I've just seen:[reply]

"There is much to see and do in this sleepy little town, from mountain biking, to scuba diving, kayaking and, most important, fishing chartes to catch a big game fish. To catch big game is of course dependant to weather and season. If no big game fish is caught, then it might be a lot of Dorado, Grouper, Snapper or Pargo, just to name some excellent fish for eating. There was once a road but that road was only a better donkey path. And traveling was kind of an adventure. The Baja peninsula contains mostly out of lava rocks. And many streets even today are covered with those lava rocks".

Perhaps they are confusing it with deepermost Japan? Hehehe ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RS for Religious sources

On this talk page we are discussing the following comment:

These primary sources are interpreted by the author, the interpretations can be regarded as WP:OR. A citecheck for these refs is needed. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This falls under discussion on RS for religion related articles and the question is an open one, I would appreciate comments by others:

Secondary sources by religious teachers: Most of sources above fall under this category and deal with the traditional views of the sect - they were discussed and they fall under the kind called "Writings by sectarian leaders/teachers." (as in the discussion referred in the links above). As per consensus of the board: "These sources can be useful to express the sect's own views of itself and the world. However great care should be taken that these opinions are carefully attributed." There are a number of conditions under which they are to be used as per above * quoted discussionon the board - it appeared to have received a WP:consensus.

However it would be important to have a second opinion on use of the sectarian sources to support views of a particular sect, be it Christian, Muslim or Vaishnava. Especially if the article is about (as for example this one) a concept that is formulated by a sect. It would be useful to conclude on it as to avoid unnecessary tagging.

In essence they merely illustrate the particular view help within particular religious interpretation as a POV in WP:YESPOV. I do not think you can just dismiss all the writings as they are all WP:V. Let me know what other editors think and if this WP:V material should be removed.

Obvious if it is not WP:V material it should be removed. If the sects opinion is taken out of context its should be noted and removed again.

Primary Sanskrit sources as translated by religious/sectarian teachers.

There is a number of such quotes above and they are typical on all Hinduism related works, mainly because of the different media.

If reference is to a Sanskrit slokas which is necessary if you talk about a Sanskrit term, as is the case in this article on Svayam bhagavan do we need to show a context of the sectarian text as per above where they were taken from? Again opinion is sought on inclusion of this type to achieve the consensus. I understand that this is English encyclopedia and a care should be taken to avoid use of Sanskrit in the main text, but I can not see any harm in retaining actual Sanskrit in the footnotes, let me know what you think.

We all know that secondary sources are better, but its not an absolute necessity for all the material, as far as I understand.

Wikidās ॐ 15:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have suggested:

I might suggest changing it to something like (this is not a finalized proposal) "Svayam bhagavan is a Sanskrit theological term. It has been translated in various ways into English. ..." It would be useful to note which traditions use the phrase most frequently, to help ensure that the existing lead content emphasizing Krishna is reflective of due weight. If it isn't, then the references in the lead to Krishna could be moved in a separate section on Krishna as svayam bhagavan, and include other sections on other avatars as svayam bhagavan; such sections do not yet seem to exist, but might be the most reasonable way of organizing the article. The last sentence/paragraph of the lead is almost certainly removable, as I believe that material is already included elsewhere. I also question, although I can't be sure, inclusion of sections of Sanskrit text in the English language wikipedia, as very few people reading this article will actually know a single word in those sections, including me. For all I know, there might be in it a very rude statement about the mother of the person reading the article; it doesn't really enhance the understanding of the subject at all. I could be wrong, of course. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, I would appreciate if you can comment on 1) Secondary sources in the religious denomination context. 2) Primary sources referring to foreign language footnotes. 3) Use of the translation of the no.2 as they are published by the religious teachers. Thank you. Wikidās ॐ16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zinta FAC

Hello John!

I must say I'm tired. I have no problem with editors opposing, but when editors try to fail it from the very outset, it saddens me a lot. Please see the last oppose. Clearly not actionable, especially cosidering all the other BLP FAs. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bald One is on the case. I copy edited the first few paragraphs earlier and I'll try to give it a vigorous seeing to over the next few days ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as a trial I'm removed all the copywrighted images and I have to say I think it affects the quality of the article. Two of the images I consider encyclopedia. The larger beatuiful picture of Zinta in KANK, the bottom one however I have to admit was more decoratative but the teenager mother and image of her with Khan in a Filmfar award winning role I think are encyclopedic and help understanding and visualize her role as an actress ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as stunning as the image of her in the gold jacket in KANK is, it hasn't really a purpose encyclopically. The other two are discussed significantly in the text and even in the intro to the article and they are also images of landmarks moments in her career so should not be discounted. I don't mind objections that copywrighted images shouldn't be included in an article but what concenrs me is double standards and that some FA's like Diane Keaton are permitted four screenshots while others seemed to have to refrain from any. What I want is consistancy all over. Either they are permitted all across wikipedia or they aren't. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A light at the end of the tunnel, with Tony withdrawing his oppose. Now there is another oppose. But the problems seem to be not as serious now. One editor left some comments but some of his comments are not clear to me. For example, he says "grammar..." and I don't really know what he means. For example:

"She would subsequently take on a variety of character types, and in doing so has been credited with changing the image of Hindi film heroine." Grammar.. - does he mean that an "a" is missing after "image of"?

Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Bigglesworth has done a spot of editing today all by himself

Combined Banner

The combined Christianity/Eastern Orthodoxy banner does not seem to categorize the article in the importance category for WP Eastern Orthodoxy when it is added. see Talk:Nicene Creed. It stays as unknown importance. Grk1011 (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hogenakkal falls.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Revamp of the assessment scheme

Hi John, thanks for offering to help with this initiative. I think we have enough warm bodies to get things started (though I think most of us are pretty busy!). I'm suggesting that we start with a clear, detailed definition of the scheme, using examples as Holon suggests. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John

Hey John, as you know, Tony has withdrawn his oppose so I believe we can reach the so awaited FA with some work. My question is:

The following sentence seems to be too praising:

After the release of this film, Zinta was recognised for her versatility as an actress; commended for work portraying a wide range of characters in Kya Kehna, Sangharsh and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke, and credited with establishing a new image for leading actresses in Bollywood.

What do you think about changing it to:

"After the release of this film, Zinta was often recognised for her versatility as an actress. Critics attributed her characters in Kya Kehna, Sangharsh and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke, as to establishing a new image for leading actresses in Bollywood."

What do you think John? Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original is a problematic sentence. Not only are you using the same reference in just a few words but you are basically saying the same thing twice and the tone is far too gushing at the same time with all those claims in one sentence. Recognizing her versatility as an actress is exactly the same thing as critics attributing her portrayal of a wide range of characters. It just isn't right. There should be two claims -that critics recognized her versatility in playing a wide range of characters and that her roles were quite symbolic in that they contributed to a new perception of a Hindi film heroine.

Shahid's newest example seems fine but

This sentence seems right to me:

"After the release of this film, critics recognized her versatility as an actress and attributed her roles in Kya Kehna, Sangharsh and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke as contributing to new perception of a Hindi film heroine".

PLease read the comments I've made on Shahid's talk page and join in the discussion as to how to try to improve it ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have an email. I'm curious ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There we go. Check the main page Liberian National Museum. Perhaps you would like a reading break? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

I've posted about the Talk page abuse at WP:AN. I want an outside opinion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Project Elections

Can we close the elections now ? Please accept the post of Lead co-ordinator . You are more deserved and eligible for the role. -- ₮inucherian ^(Talk) - 05:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind being the Lead co-ordinator of the prjt ? If so, I shall close the elections -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Sandy, is it OK to leave a message on one editor's talk page and indirectly ask him to oppose the nomination at a certain FAC? That's what the only editor who opposed at the Zinta FAC did now twice. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent the comment to both Sandy and you because I wanted both of you to know about this. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes John, and I'm referring to this also. He says, "Would you also be able to weigh in on this FAC? imho, it is bad enough not to be FA."

After editors like Tony and Laser withdrawing their opposes and one of them even changing to "support" - we get to that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIV - May 2008

The May 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Togo

I've created a template monster at Template:Bassar Prefecture. When I've comepleted it there will be severa; hundred articles to tag for togo. Have you organized a bot yet such as JohnBot which could be used to pound on those talk pages?? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly suggest you try to create your own personal one. It would save you so many hours of tagging. I'm certain a bot could be created to get these Africa setltements up and running also but so far nothing ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've never been one of the computer science nerds either. Thats isn't my thing either. But in this day and age you shouldn't have to do that huge amount manually for tagging I don't think espically if there are a batch of articles which have the same level of importance or class. Could you try addressing it to User talk:MBisanz and say we want things done 10 times faster! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds promising. I'm just having some computer trouble every page is taking like 2 minutes to load. I just cleared the browsing history which was enormous but its still playing up. I'll do a reboot now see if it goes back to normal. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

problem editors

hell john, im having a little bit of a dispute with two editors on the grunge music article with this user [11] and this user[12]i made a small change to the decline section to mesh better and be more accurate with the statements made with in the section but some how these users keep reverting and are unwilling to compromise i have not made a disscusion on the article page but i have been trying to come to a compromise on one of the problem editors user page but they just keep reverting the edit and i gave a 3 revert rule warning to one if you could look into this thank you i dont know what elese to do --Wikiscribe (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play party (BDSM) (2nd nomination)

Since you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, i would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Play party (BDSM), which is currently up for deletion. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISSO (Swaminarayan)

I wanted to move the above but to its full name, International Swaminarayan Satsang Organisation, which redirects to the above. However, the redirect there prevents me from doing so. I understand that ur an admin, an u pl. do this? Thanks, Wheredevelsdare (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup listings

Hello,

recently you requested cleanup listings for Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology. I'm not sure whether you already announced these listings to the other project members (I found nothing to that end on the project talk pages). My goal with this "test phase" of the cleanup listings is to gather feedback whether these kind of list are useful, and how they could be improved. So I'm interested that the project members actually take notice. I can of course post on those talk pages myself; I just wanted to find out whether you already left them a note somewhere or not. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, John.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. As you felt the need to remain neutral, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graceful loss vs havoc

Hi John. Since you know the Wikipedia policies better, please tell me what happens when:

Some user proposes a rename/merge and a vote is taken.

the proposing user threatens havoc thereafter if he loses.

The user proposing this loses the vote and continues to butcher the page, cause havoc and starts a process of slow merge and slow rename in a gradual manner to achieve the same affect as the vote that he lost.

Several other users are unhappy about this and hav eexpressed frustration on other pages as well. What can they do?

This is happening on the Blessed Virgin Mary page and is slow vandalism in my view. What are the Wikepedia remedies here?

Thanks History2007 (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will follow your advice. History2007 (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Blessed Virgin Mary(John_Carter) makes a bit more sense (in context) now that I see what History2007 told you here.

I, "the user"

proposes a rename to Blessed Virgin Mary since I was it as a violation of WP policy
never threasted havoc
did, among many other things said, point out that I would edit the page-content fit the page-name if the page-name stayed the same.
have done this since the change (to meet WP policy) fell undone -- but have mostly added material.
did, get multiable reverts and accusations of "butcher the page"
did and do make continued efforts discuss content issues with History2007, but without much feedback from him as to what is ment by his accusations --Carlaude (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I don't know what his main conclusion is. Is this site reliable according to him? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I trust this site very much, especially considering the fact that many other reliable sources do. It will be very difficult to find such accurate information as that on the net. This site is the best. I cannot get how newspapers can use it and Wikipedia cannot. It's an evidence isn't it? New sources will turn the page upside down. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to fight for this source, because I don't think only about Zinta. 300 additional Bollywood-related articles on Wikipedia are involved. Our entire project will be destroyed. See Gguy's comment on the FAC, I think it's very relevant. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I frankly prefer to lose an FA, rather than see 300 Wikipedia articles destroyed. The problem is not the source, the problem is that it's Indian. The zero international recognition that Indian sources receive is the main reason to that. And it saddens me. I cannot concede. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know John, I can imagine that you are now very surprised with my response, but I think you can somehow there understand my concern. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really agree with you. It's not the case however. "which is really only about the revenue information." -- that's the problem, it's not only revenue information. As you know, revenues are almost always different and even contradicting, the only thing that remains steady is the verdict: "biggest hit", "top-grossing" etc., even when it comes to American trade sites.

The matter is, something I cannot understand and am very skeptical about, is the usage of this source in very reliable sites. Forget ToI, forget Hindustan Times, but Times Online, an internationally recognised newspaper. Are the editors of this newspaper less intelligent and/or responsible than we Wikipedia editors are? I believe the site is very careful and must assure that they use the best sources as their sources. How can we ignore that? I really respect Girolamo, who seems to be as intelligent as you are, but what about User:Nichalp, User:Spartaz who did accept the source?

What do you mean by "If other sources which do cite that source can be found" - there are...

Please believe me John, if I hadn't been sure of this site's realibility from the beginning, I would never have used it. But the information is accurate, the site is definitely not a blog, it is very active, and the info is always approved, I say that as someone who is very aware of what goes on in the Indian media.

I'll see what happens until tomorrow. I've messaged Girolamo and Geometry guy, whose note re BOI on the FAC was very impressive.

Now I have to go. Thanks for the help, I really appreciate your great efforts. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John! You must see the bottom of the noticeboard page! Sarvagnya now questions the reliability of boxofficemojo.com as well in the same way he did that with BOI. I think it makes some things clear. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, first of all, I'm sorry if I did/said something wrong yesterday. Secondly, Gguy commented on the noticeboard. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're busy right now, but I would also like to note that you told Sarvagnya at the beginning of the discussion to prove that BOI is a self-published source. He did not do that, although User:Haemo supported you, and then continues citing to WP:SPS, which actually was not relevant because he hadn't proved its being a self-published source. I believe we can still fight for this source. It was not an easy task to look for other BO statistics, and without that site it will be very difficult to make high quality articles. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Z has posted a very valid comment here today - his point is extremely valid. It's a big WOW! But it went unnoticed because it was not posted in the right subsection, because there are several subsections after "break on Boxofficeindia.com: special invitation for broader input", and he may have mistakenly considered themas new topics. We should contact him and ask him to move his message to the last relevant subsection of BOI. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>Poke<

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Proposals

: )

- jc37 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how to take part in "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarvagnya"

dear John_Carter , i wish if i would have some examples or assistance dealing with this page. regards:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird edit conflict

I can't figure it out, but I think your support somehow got swallowed up in a weird edit conflict, because it's not showing on the page? [13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weird. I did a null edit and now it's there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: kitties

Well, I assume you've read the relevant stuff here already? ;-)

Other than that, I'd suggest taking things slowly and not getting caught up in trying to change everything at once; that tends to lead to burnout (either yours or the rest of the members'). Particularly with a project such as Christianity, I'd suggest focusing initially on bringing all the various sub-groups onto the same page and consolidating them as much as possible.

Beyond that, watching what good ideas other projects come up with and adapting them for your own purposes tends to be fairly beneficial. It's largely a question of what the active membership wants and/or can sustain, though. Kirill ^(prof) 01:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot

Thanks a lot for the award and kindwords. You made me really happy -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 05:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008 Newsletter

May 2008 Newsletter is ready to take off at Template:WikiProject_Christianity/Outreach/May_2008 . Let me know if there are any concerns or suggestions asap.I had asked BetacommandBot for delivery -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 05:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Board elections/2008

Well I do have a lot of ideas certainly as to how the wikimedia project can develop, for starters developing the most advanced translation and comprehensive language service on the web which I feel is extremely imortant in breaking down barriers in the world of knowledge. Any site which attempts to achieve the "sum of all knowledge free to anyone in their own language" cannot go on ignoring language development and how easier it would be if different wikipedias could translate across the project with a service.

I'm not sure how I would go about it being a board member, I also think I have good credentials, but if it means I would have to travel across the globe just to attend meetings then I would have to decline. Its a nice thought though. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GeoBot

Hi there. We've requested the creation and programming of a new GeoBot. You are invited to join in the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Some type of GeoBot ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the response I wanted at the requests page. Seems some people think it likely the Burmese goverment is going to start donating information about its 40,000 settlements. Thinks have to be made so awkward on this site don't they. I don't know why I bother to even look at a wiki discussion page. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit potection request

edit protect request for the grunge music page for a couple of weeks the page is being reverted constantly--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BVM: I quote

Because others have re-added my content and History2007 re-removed without disussion again, he writes:

I think my revert of your edits should remain. This matter is in the hands of administrators, therefore, please discuss it with them, not me. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is not where an administrator comes in and fixes one person-- they mediate between people. Than means it is already between you and I (at least) and that for a mediation to take place-- you have to take part!

Yes, we know that you your revert should remain-- and you have a right to an opinion-- but not to just have things your way you want it-- nor to just have things your way because you "asked for mediation." --Carlaude (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that I am said to be violating WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS, or that History2007 is not? --Carlaude (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, because it seems your changes may have been contrary to the consensus, so he could be seen as trying to act to support the consensus which arose. If you want to request formal mediation on the article, fine, do so at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I haven't myself had all the time required to review all your changes, but I think formal mediation would probably be the way to go here. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I know it was a long discussion, if you read a bit more carefully you will see that the 9:2 vote was only on a merge-- an issue that someone else suggested-- is not really at issue here-- and that people used as a straw figure even back then after it was dropped a possibility.

Is this why you think he has consensus?

The vote here on a rename would be the relativant issue, if any of them are, and it had no consensus.

Further more, History2007 is the only one I notice with this bone to pick (against me), but someone else this morning begin putting back in my changes on his own, until History2007 undid and claimed some authority. I know that 2:1 is not much of a consensus but it looks to me like it is more with me than against me.

But-- even if History2007 did have "consensus" of something-- why is he impcitly permitted to undo my edits when he will not state his case or even state what "the consensus view" is?

Flooding of the Nile

Hey John! Any particular reason the Egypt banner was deleted when the ancient Egypt banner was added? I was curious if this is something that you're doing for other articles where the subject might fall within the scope of both projects. This however will prevent it from being assessed in the other project. — Zerida ☥ 01:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette alert

A Wikiquette alert over User:History2007 conduct on Blessed Virgin Mary and related pages has been posted. --Carlaude (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA Zinta

John, Shahid has requested to close the nomination early as he feels it will never pass. I on the other hand think differently and it is virtually there is we can solve those small problems. But people could really give the guy a break with the criticisms. Please offer your thoughts. Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to tell you except for thank you for the amazing help. I told everyone that it's reliable, nobody listened. Some editors think they have the authority to decide things. They did not even prove its being SPS, so how can we take it at face value? And I'm very tired. In a month or so, I'm leaving Wikipedia. Until then, I want to do something substatial, which will let me leave the project with a smile on my face. But when I see that my attempt to address a comment is being reverted with no basis, it's the last straw. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the history. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is now BOI considered reliable? (at least by Giro) Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His answer to me: "I've acknowledged that I won't continue to contest it at the moment" Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it was shown to be an SPS. That's not the reason why I conceded the issue. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel there is no such thing as "someone's word carries more weight than a lot of people" because all editors are equal, regardless of what role they have on here. Relata for example is a perfect example. Now, as for others, whose opinions I do not consider valuable at all (IMHonestO), they should understand what consensus is. If they continue to oppose even after Girolamo doesn't, it will be a perfect evidence that it's just a matter of personal caprice. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they are all equal, then why should they bow down to my change? It doesn't stand to reason. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is consensus; and they remain the sole editor to oppose. Don't you think they are all equal? Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One has the right to continue to disagree. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Sarvagnya

I undeleted the page just to double-check Sheffield's involvement on the talk page. It seems Sheffield had some input on the talk page (some comments regarding Sarvagnya and sources). It looks like he's trying to resolve a dispute regarding the article's sources. After a quick review, I think we can let the RfC proceed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the issue is user conduct. I don't think SS made any attempt to resolve this issue. Also, besides a Wikiquette posting and your postings on his talk page (which he reverted), I don't think Sarvagnya's conduct has been discussed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just a heads-up, comments like [14] and [15] aren't going to make any headway in trying to get another user to be more civil. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second wasn't mine, but I understand the point taken. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too lazy to post on both your talk pages...but you know what I mean. :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can leave some notes on user talk pages, but please make your notice "neutral". Don't overstep the bounds of WP:CANVASS and you should be fine. You can also leave a link on relevant article talk pages (Hogenakkal Falls, in this case) to inform users. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last stupid question. I've seen in the past just saying "Let's confine our comments to the article, not each other, please," can be effective. Does it qualify as a semi-formal "warning" for RfC purposes, though?

I'm not sure I understand, but I'll take a stab anyway. If you mean a "warning", as part of the attempt to resolve a user's conduct issues, then no, I don't think this would be sufficient for RfC. Please tell me if my answer helps at all. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New BVM Fork

Ambrosius007, History2007, and Xandar seem intent on making two articles, Blessed Virgin Mary‎ & Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), to the same with the same material-- and proved (to me anyway) that they do not understand the WP:FORK policy. What do you recommend? --Carlaude (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huge orphaned category; needs WikiProject Islam's attention

Could you take a look at the following categories: , , ? These are really sparse, and a lot of the pages are just stubs. It looks like a project that someone started that got abandoned. I'm not really sure what should be done with them (perhaps condense into a single time-line?), but I am reasonably sure that this shouldn't stay the way it is. What do you think? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]