User talk:Warlordjohncarter~enwiki/Archive Aug 2009
Thank you
[edit]
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| Thank you for being an articulate spokesperson for me in Arbitration. You gave me hope with your insightful statements in many places there. You were invaluable—words cannot convey. I wish I could find a way to say how much your support meant. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC) |
I noticed you had a hand in merging the descendent projects of WikiProject Mammals into the above template, I have recently proposed adding options to the mammal template in order to better facilitate child projects, and would welcome your feedback. --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Cooneyite / Christian convention merge
[edit]Not a lot of new opinions showing up. Would you like to summarize and make the call? --Nemonoman (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Repeating this request today.--Nemonoman (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
What now need to be down is being awarded a Barnstar
[edit]- Thank you for letting me know that I am worth of being warded a Barnstar.My Awarded Barnstars.
--Mr. Unknown (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Articles
[edit]Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Articles, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Articles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Articles during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jeffro77 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Category:Christianity in Macedonia
[edit]Hi! I removed your merger proposal from Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, because that page is intended for articles, not categories. The correct place to suggest a category merger is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. I've listed it there instead (see here). I also copied your original rationale to that page. Jafeluv (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you adopt me ?
[edit]Hi, I'm a new user, looking for some guidance under an experienced hand. Can you adopt me ? Rkr1991 (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
. Sorry, but since I didn't get a reply, I got adopted by Dylon620. My apologies. Rkr1991 (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Formatting for autonumbering
[edit]I just saw your question in the edit summary here after fixing the numbering for my comment. Some of the indents above your reply were formatted as ::::: instead of #:::::, so the autonumberer started a new list. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Shamelessly seeking input at Advisory Council RFC
[edit]I've made a proposal on the talk page of the Advisory Council RFC in hopes of finding a constructive way forward. I'm shamelessly asking for input on it from you and others who have taken part in the discussion. Please see this section and contribute as you see fit. Thanks, alanyst /talk/ 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
POV image?
[edit]Hey John, is this image ok, or is it presenting a POV interpretation of events depicted/prophesied in the Bible? The image in question is File:Apocalypse1.gif. What do you think? Should I take the question the Christianity project or the Bible project? LadyofShalott 04:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thoughts at WT:X. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 22:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Christian Conventions
[edit]Noted that there are still plenty of SPS references in this article. The statements have a ring of truth to them but are always turned in a way to make the group look bad. For example, workers burn letters and such because they don't have room in their luggage, this is termed ominously "destruction of records", as if the group is not in compliance with some kind of statute. Article is full of this kind of thing. I really don't think much of wiki enforcement. A decision was made about SPS sources, and they are still there. That wouldn't matter in and of itself, except that the article has strong POV against the group. I see some of my suggestion for the first paragraph were taken, but I don't need nonemoman smearing me and also having to fight every line in the article out with the one author and his OR. My feeling is that wiki is now POV against religious groups, pro- secular after Scientology debacle, but that is just a feeling. I would STRONGLY suggest pulling ALL the SPS stuff but I know it won't be done. I suspect writer is either Daniel or Fortt since we do not know who he is. We do know he writes about this group, nothing else, and has done tons of his own research using primary sources. Why? RSuser (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Investigation Started
[edit]Hi! This is just to notify you that I have begun investigating 129.2.175.70. If you're interested, you may review the progress here. Thanks. Netalarm 12:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
advisory panel
[edit]I think you would be an excellent member, and if your name had been included I would feel a whole lot better about it. Did you send and email to ArbCom, as potential invitees are supposed to do? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
All prior attempts at creating similar groups in the past have been proposed in the past
[edit]"All prior attempts at creating similar groups in the past have been proposed in the past" is definitely true, but apparently meaningless. What did you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- [mv from my talk - WMC] I meant "rejected", not proposed. I've made the change to the statement to reflect that. Thanks for catching it. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Aha. Now I understand William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Engineer, DOD
[edit]Many Civil Servants and Contractors are in IRAQ and Afganistan and do get killed, captured/tortured, or injured. We all watch the four contractors being drug thru the streets and hung from the bridge in IRAQ. At least the Military gets combat training and have guns. The Civil Servants get hazard pay but no special medical benefits or what not to cover the dangerous duty. Furthermore, they have to pay taxes on their pay while overseas. 72.75.76.187 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
ANI
[edit]Hello, Warlordjohncarter~enwiki. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Refusal to engage arguments regarding the failure of some editors to engage arguments. The discussion is about the topic Martin Luther King. Thank you. --Årvasbåo (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Success!
[edit]Just thought I should notify you. I've received a response from the University of Maryland, agreeing to investigate and take action against the offending vandal. I'm now closing the case, and we can probably expect a decrease or end to this vandal's activities. Thanks for reporting the vandal! Concluding report may be found here Netalarm 15:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Introductions
[edit]Hi John, touched bases with ScienceApologist about prospective mentorship. He'd like to talk to you, so I suggested starting a dialog here. I'll be around if either of you need me. :) Durova278 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi John, what are you proposing vis-a-vis this mentorship? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - July 2009
[edit]| The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
John Carter (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Weird thing
[edit]Hey John, been a long time. Anyway, there's this user called User:Kashmeri, who is using Aghajani Kashmeri as his userpage and Talk:Aghajani Kashmeri as his talk page via redirects. I know it's a he because on the article he uses a lot of first person, and says he is the son of the article's subject (within the article). Is he allowed to do this? I should know all this by now, yes, I've been here 5 months. But I don't. Sorry if I'm bothering you, I know you're pretty busy. Sorry. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 21:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Re: Ready for delivery
[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-- Tinu Cherian - 04:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Removing references to username
[edit]Hi John: Special:Contributions/209.162.236.195 who apparently may also be Special:Contributions/RSuser and Special:Contributions/67.43.136.72 has been XXXXX'ing out a username in many places, including discussions. It's my understanding that the old username XXXXX is 209.162.236.19's actual name. If s/he has been the object of cyber-stalking, etc., or fears that might happen, God bless him/her and I hope all goes well. That user name, however has done 625+ edits, and has a real history that wants to be available and maintained, that this XXXXXing hides or makes obscure.
The affected user page has been deleted, but the user contributions remain and offer potential help and insight to other editors.
Do you have any admin tools that would allow to RENAME the XXXXX'd out username, and update talk-page references to that name? The rename could be to something innocuous == "FormerEditor" or something...
For example, I'm thinking it might be possible to change my username 'nemonoman' to 'DoctorNasty', and see that change propogated through all the places I'd signed my handle with --~~~~
Have you ever heard of something like this being done with a userpage? It was done with Taj Mahal: We removed some diacritcal mark from over the "a" in Taj so that seaching for Taj Mahal landed on the article instead of a redirect. Somehow all the page links using the diacritical also got changed, I would assume with some sort of admin tool. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I have no wish to change my old name on edit history, only in those 5 or 6 comments like the one above that deliberately linked my old name and new name together. Obviously that is an inadvertent outing as the old name was my surname. Anyway, nothing so drastic as cyber-stalking, I just don't want my now adult kids or anyone else who shares my surname to be mistakenly assumed to be that lunatic on wikipedia. :) Everyone with that surname, in the world, is a relative, however distant, of mine. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dear 209.etc: I am not assuming any untoward intent on your part here -- I accept your privacy concern at face value, and I am trying to accommodate you by using "XXXXX" myself as we discuss. But the many contributions that were made using the XXXXX username are not now readily accessible by an editor late to the game, and an awareness of XXXXX's history on the CC article was very useful to me, so I assume it would be as well to any newly arrived editor. So finding a way to maintain access to the contribution history XXXXX made is a reasonable goal IMO, if we can find a way to accomodate your privacy concerns\. I assume you don't mind if an Admin has away to alias the XXXXX username and preserve easy access to the contribution history? I'm not doing this to make trouble for you, I'm just asking if the technical functionality exists. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- WP:CHU is probably the best way to go, although that action has to be performed by bureaucrats, not just mere admins. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dear 209.etc: I am not assuming any untoward intent on your part here -- I accept your privacy concern at face value, and I am trying to accommodate you by using "XXXXX" myself as we discuss. But the many contributions that were made using the XXXXX username are not now readily accessible by an editor late to the game, and an awareness of XXXXX's history on the CC article was very useful to me, so I assume it would be as well to any newly arrived editor. So finding a way to maintain access to the contribution history XXXXX made is a reasonable goal IMO, if we can find a way to accomodate your privacy concerns\. I assume you don't mind if an Admin has away to alias the XXXXX username and preserve easy access to the contribution history? I'm not doing this to make trouble for you, I'm just asking if the technical functionality exists. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since the affected user is watching this page, I'll ask here for his/her opinion on how to proceed. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- As indicated I'm not concerned about the history that exists under my old name. The problem comes in when you and Astynax use references of the form "Old Name/ New Name", linking my old and new names in dialogue, instead of just calling me by my new name. That's why I've had to drop RSUser, because linking the two names defeats the purpose of my getting the new user name in the first place. (Never mind that I'd rather be anon anyway right now). Sorry, if I'm repeating myself but we don't have to change any of the history if you just drop the combined references. Just pretend the "old name" is a different person not related to me. If someone wants to CHU my old name, I'm okay with that but it's not strictly speaking necessary. 67.43.136.72 (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since the affected user is watching this page, I'll ask here for his/her opinion on how to proceed. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Holy Cow!
[edit]
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| For an astonishing amount of library work to provide better sources for Christian Conventions -- so much extra effor it makes me tired just to think about it! Nemonoman (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC) |
After several years of being in wikipedia, rated with a class star and supported by the wikiproject, without any reason, the article of Rodolfo Valentin has been nominated for deletion. Can you please help to "keep" it?. thank youNicole reutman (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]"But there is, so far as I can tell, no good reason for comments such as the above." Not clear whether you are referring to my comments or Nonemoman's in this sentence. Could you clarify? Thanks. Section link if needed is - Talk:Christian_Conventions#.22known_non-reliable.2C_SPS_sources.22 209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Stone-Campbell
[edit]Per your comment Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 14#Category:Universities and colleges by affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement, do you think it would be prudent to move Restoration Movement to Stone-Campbell Movement over the redirect? It would seem like a good idea to me, if your opinion was accurate. Hope you're doing well, and thanks for the input over at Talk:Southern Nazarene University#Crimson sources and research last month. I'm sorry if I neglected to thank you previously! --King of the Arverni (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
For profit activities
[edit]For a balanced view of Mr. Koch, Truthout's Greg Palast reports that, "In the 1980s, Charles Koch was found to have pilfered about $3 worth of crude from Stanlee Ann Mattingly's oil tank in Oklahoma. Here's the weird part. Koch was (and remains) the 14th richest man on the planet, worth about $14 billion. Stanlee Ann was a dirt-poor Osage Indian.
Stanlee Ann wasn't Koch's only victim. According to secret tape recordings of a former top executive of his company, Koch Industries, the billionaire demanded that oil tanker drivers secretly siphon a few bucks worth of oil from every tank attached to a stripper well on the Osage Reservation where Koch had a contract to retrieve crude.
Koch, according to the tape, would "giggle" with joy over the records of the theft. Koch's own younger brother Bill ratted him out, complaining that, in effect, brothers Charles and David cheated him out of his fair share of the looting, which totaled over three-quarters of a billion dollars from the native lands.
The FBI filmed the siphoning with hidden cameras, but criminal charges were quashed after quiet objections from Republican senators."
Read an interview with William Koch, Charles' brother, on CBS News detailing the above and mentioning that, in the subsequent investigation, 20 of Koch's "gaugers" testified under oath that stealing was company policy directly from the top [1]. This last is separate from William's testimony.
- [1]: William Koch appears on CBS News
- Truthout: Truthout discusses American values or lack of morality vis-à-vis native peoples, historically consistent American history.Stormport (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
RSN on CC article
[edit]Am I allowed to state a POV on the RS/N regarding CC sources? Not clear on this. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- No one is ever barred from commenting anywhere, provided their comments are appropriate and they haven't been made subject of disciplinary measures. Having said that, it wouldn't help much if the comments were very long. A simple indication of what sources are questioned and a short summary of why they are questioned would probably be acceptable, but any statement of excess length is more likely than not to effectively detract from the conversation. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I made my comments and hope they're beneficial. Please have a look and let me know if anything jumps out at you.209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
John Carter, I am concerned that the RSN request will become bogged down in too much detail. Any ideas? Could you step in and provide some focus. Thanks. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Might interest you. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Your ANI post
[edit]Hi John, although I'm pretty sure the IP and The Twelfth Doctor are the same, I have to note that those edits are a content dispute in which you are, I think, correct, but not vandalism, and 3RR is supposed to be a 'bright line' with only reverting clear vandalism or BLP violations given an exemption. Note I've left one article unprotected as there wasn't enough action there to warrant protection. If it boils up, let me know, but watch your edits. I can't really warn one side of a dispute and not another, I'm afraid. Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're right there. Sorry about that, and thanks. I wasn't sure about the last revert myself, but looked at the policy page in advance and may have misread what I saw to my own advantage. I'm afraid that sort of mistake is one I do make once in a while. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I try hard to stop at 2. It's not worth getting warned about, let alone blocked. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources
[edit]I put forward the point a long time ago (it's in the RS talk archives somewhere) that "reliable" sources is a misnomer, misleading and confusing, as no source is infallible. I suggested "acceptable" sources (for wikipedia purposes) would be a more helpful concept. Some sources may be reliable, but actually not acceptable, and vice versa. Sources may be acceptable for one thing, but not another. Some mainstream sources would be acceptable for all content, as wikipedia is essentially a digest of established thought (even if that is erroneous at times: if it's mainstream, it holds sway). Some sources would be acceptable in a much more limited way, i.e. to demonstrate an extreme, minority (but not "tiny" minority) viewpoint. Ty 01:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
[edit]For helping me whenever I ask, even though you are busy and I am annoying, I present you with this:-
|
The "Helping Random Idiots Who Can't Use Wikipedia" Barnstar | |
| For helping me and stuff. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 14:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 14:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome [level 3 sarcasm] :) Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
WikiVanuatu
[edit]Thanks for doing great work relating Vanutu wiki project. As I am starter in Wiki , i feel I have difficulty in templates. Kindly do some work to improve the Wiki Vanuatu project. Thank you friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueLankan (talk • contribs) 18:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
WikiVanuatu
[edit]Thank you friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueLankan (talk • contribs) 18:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
[edit]For reading the offer in the spirit it was intended. Let's hope that a year from now things are on a much better footing all around. Best wishes, Durova288 22:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Your assistance would be much appreciated in helping set up this wikiproject since you have so much experience in this field. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)