User talk:Warlordjohncarter~enwiki/Archive Jun 2009

R Request on arb page

John, This looks like the use of wiki for publicity, since NAMIRI is an 'anonymous' Moroccan company dealing in direct or indirect participation in (financial) operations or enterprises by means of the creation of companies, participation in their set up by in raising capital for existing companies, taking orders to effect such things, like buying stocks, voting rights etc. . .It publicizes itself as virtually ready to engages in any type of economic activity, management, agricultural, commercial, maritime or mining business. It's just an advertisement gives its social capital (a pittance) and its account number in a Moroccan bank. etc. If you want I could translate the lot, but you'd better check with Fayssaf(sp.) who's Moroccan, just to confirm. Best Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Project Namespace

Yes. I just want to know how to create a page for the project.Tobit2 (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

John. I answered my own question. Thanks for taking an interest.Tobit2 (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User page spam

Your user page has come under quite a lot of vandalism lately. I have done my best to revert and report the users involved in it, however, I think semi-protection or full protection of your userpage may be a smart idea. I just wanted to let you know, have a great day. talk ProSpider 23:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is semiprotected now, actually. It's one repeated vandal based on User talk:129.2.175.70 who seems to have serious problems. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to consider filing a checkuser request as well to possibly reveal who the real sockpuppeteer is. There was a CU case once where someone reported a bunch of IP's and were able to reveal the real person responsible. See This sockpuppet case as an example. Momo san ^Gespräch 00:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Abuse report

Hi, I didn't take any action on the most recent report that you made since they have only been blocked twice, and perhaps the longer block will cause them to reform. If they still keep it up after the block, drop me a note, though I have yet to find Verizon receptive to reports of abuse unfortunately.--Terrillja _talk 00:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/129.2.175.70

I created a sockpuppet/checkuser case for you. Your input is needed for the case. Thanks. Momo san ^Gespräch 00:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

New sock User:NedScottPN3142339291

Just added him to the suspected socks list. Looking at the log, this one was a sleeper account. Momo san ^Gespräch 01:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Ghana

WikiProject Ghana is listed as inactive and you are one of its members. Just wanted to let you know. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		It's for being a cat. Really Username (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please give me a barnstar! Here you will find a well-written essay which will convince you. Do you know how many barnstars I've given out already! If there was a "Barnstar of Barnstar Giving Barnstars" I would have like a million of them. Sorry for using this as an opportunity to beg. --Username (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you so much! :):):):)--Username (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ManeuversGold

Hi John. Is there any way I can get you to add the rest of the suspected socks that were listed on the ips talk? Synergy 09:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading list on the Baltic states

Hi John, I note you are reading up on the Baltic states, that's commendable. I've added a list here: User_talk:Hiberniantears#Real_world_required_reading_on_the_Baltics. I also have an reasonable collection of books at home, and access to my university library, so if you need assistance tracking material down, give me a yell. Martintg (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in this book published just last year which reviews the Baltic question during the Cold War, called, um, "The Baltic question during the Cold War". I've not read the book beyond skimming the preview, but it seems it could be the definitive study of the various viewpoints (including the Russian viewpoint) regarding the Soviet occupation of the Baltics. Martintg (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiden's work on the Baltics is very highly regarded, I'm not familiar with this work, but having read others, I can vouch for their quality and scholarship. His publisher had asked me to review one of his books, here. PetersV       TALK 18:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

question at User:Warlordjohncarter

Someone left you a message 3 months ago at the above page. Thought you might want to know. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw it, thanks. I believe the project was about the Serbian Orthodox Church, and it didn't seem to have enough interested parties to justify it's creation at the time. But thanks for having noticed it. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Warlordjohncarter~enwiki. You have new messages at LDS-SPA1000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Warlordjohncarter~enwiki. You have new messages at LDS-SPA1000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

After the wailing and gnashing of teeth is done

I see that where paths have crossed we hold the similar editors in high esteem. I do hope that after Occupation of the Baltic States settles down our paths will next cross more constructively. PetersV       TALK 18:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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/Occupation of the Baltic states. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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.

Talkback

Hello, Warlordjohncarter~enwiki. You have new messages at LDS-SPA1000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Warlordjohncarter~enwiki. You have new messages at LDS-SPA1000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WP Polynesia/American Samoa

A vote 16 months ago concerning the merge of WP American Samoa into WP Polynesia was supported by you. Only 2 people voted, both in support. The merge has not yet happened. Just wanted to let you know (because you don't have the time to keep track of everything). LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was merged; it had earlier been Wikipedia:WikiProject American Samoa, it "merged" in as a subproject. But thanks for the reminder. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the merge tag was still in place so I assumed that the merge had not happened yet. I have now removed the merge tag. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Mail

You have mail! Hiberniantears (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Welles

Sorry for trespassing, but you noted that your are from the US, therefore perhaps you would like to comment on this. M.K. (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to correct those mistakes. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Note to self

When you're finished with the portals, work on the Welles declaration. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of article names

John, I have read your discussion with Vecrumba. I think we are getting to the nub of the matter, the neutrality of article name. The real bone of contention is the duration of the Soviet occupation, not the term "occupation" itself. Nobody disputes the Soviet Union occupied the Baltic states in 1940, but there are differing views in the duration. There is a body of post-Cold War academic work and numerous Western government declarations that supports the view occupation lasted 50 years, while the Russian government declarations supports the view that occupation ended at the conclusion of WW2, both of these view points are covered in the article itself according to weight.

The original name Occupation of the Baltic states makes no claim either way, whereas the current name Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II implies a particular POV that occupation was restricted to WW2, which is clearly more controversial given the yards of prose written about this on the various talkpages. Certainly the title "Occupation of the Baltic states" is the neutral middle ground between "Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II" and "Occupation of the Baltic states (1940-1991)". Martintg (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for yours on mine, glad to continue dialog. Historically my talk page has been a spot for working on reconciling editorial differences, all editors welcome. PetersV       TALK 18:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope that from my latest post regarding the title you can appreciate that my position is not so much that I'm a recalcitrant nationalist insisting that it's an occupation dammit, but that where portrayal of historical events is concerned, I'm caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place as removing "occupation" from the title opens far more implications and possibilities for inappropriate interpretation than leaving "occupation" in and dealing with the consequences of being perceived as/accused of being a POV-ish title. This has all been going on for years, feel free to respond at your leisure, I'm in no rush. PetersV       TALK 19:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, seeing who has commented in on the "keep" of the split-off article (I hadn't paid much attention), editors long away from the fray who have pushed the pro-Soviet view in the past have weighed in. I regret being the one to say it, but if "occupation" is removed from this title it will create an onslaught against every article which indicates that after the moment of invasion ("liberation") the Soviets ruthlessly occupied Eastern Europe. (And let's not forget that while Hitler invaded Poland to start WWII, with the Soviets radioing the Luftwaffe to assist, Stalin somehow managed to wind up with 51% of Poland while not being at war.) PetersV       TALK 14:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hey thanks! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if The Misadventure of a French Gentleman Without Pants at the Zandvoort Beach qualifies for that quirky list you once told me about? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The greatest composition ever made? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. She never blinks either LOL. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic States assistance

Thanks for your help, and outside view. I'm not certain I count as an outside view in the article any longer, despite my efforts to drive things in an NPOV direction. I particularly appreciate the suggestions for how to break the article down. I'll take things down the mediation route now, as it is clear none of the interested parties intend to let me make any changes to the article. Once again, fine effort on your part, and greatly appreciated by me. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

With the agreement arrived at from opposite poles that further ArbCom pursuit would not be fruitful, and with the "keep" closure for content split off, I thank you for your thoughtful and considered dialog. I'll be "unwatching" your talk page, as always, please feel free to contact me on mine. Best regards, PetersV       TALK 01:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Project newsletter

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

-- Tinu Cherian - 21:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Walter A. Maier Biography rating

John,

Several weeks ago I completed a biography article for Walter Maier, an article which had been rated 'stub' by Wiki Biography, Wiki Christianity, and Wiki Lutheranism. At that time, I requested a reassessment from each of these different Wiki groups, in order to gain an impartial review of what else needed to be done. After all, the article was clearly no longer a stub. You were kind enough to review the article for me, and suggested that I expand the Introductory Section, (I was unaware of the preferred format for this Section,) and that I add additional sources, (I was quite aware that I had depended too much upon a single biographical source, although that source is very well documented.) You rated the article 'B' for Biography and Christianity, but gave no rating for Lutheranism.

I am currently in the process of acquiring and digesting additional information, with the intention of improving the article per your suggestions. (I am finishing Dr. Maier's Book of Nahum, I have acquired the biography of Dr. Maier's mother, etc.) But in the interim, some confusion has apparently arisen; partially due to my unfamiliarity with Wiki protocol, I am certain. Another user came in from Wiki Biography and re-rated the article 'C' in both Biography and Christianity. He offers no suggestions for improvement, and annotates that he is reassessing per my request (a request which had already been satisfied by you.) The new reviewer is 23 years old, has no apparent affiliation with Wiki Christianity, and offers no constructive criticism.

Based upon this sequence of events, my questions to you are: 1. Can a Wiki Biography 'user' overturn a Wiki Christianity 'admin' rating? 2. Would you be comfortable 'reverting' his changes? Or am I opening a 'can of worms' that I would later regret?

I spent over two months researching and writing this 39,000 byte article, and it is complete and accurate, excepting the constructive criticism which you have correctly provided. Please do not make a 'Federal' case out of this, but if you are comfortable reverting, I think your assessment was both fair and accurate.

In either case, thank you for taking the time and effort to perform a helpful evaluation.

Mortalresurrection (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try to contribute in a fashion adds to the Wikipedia. Mortalresurrection (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirects to Michael (archangel)

I saw your name on this editor's page, any idea what is going on here? [1]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And this redirect Mary Free. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

More weirdness

You know that wikipedia is developing into something extraordinary when you can write a full and well referenced article about Oliver Cromwell's head. LOL. I've added it to the unusual list. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cromwell's head. oh you may want to check out AFD for May 8. People have voted unaminously to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium–Ukraine relations ‎,. I've actually nomated the article for a DYK too.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You Are So Great

Greetings, oh Great and Brilliant One, I have been sent by Spongefrog to praise and worship you for giving him the Barnstar he so deserved. I have also come to grovel and plead for my own Barnstar (though I probably don’t deserve it) – failing that I wouldn’t mind a little bit of friendly chat about why I don’t deserve a Barnstar. Let me know (also bear in mind I will soon be starting a List of Shame for people who don’t give me Barnstars, and a List of Not-Shame for those who do.)

Thanks,

--ScribbleStick (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The lists were my idea, you know. But I don't mind. It'll make his day if he gets another barnstar. Or at least a message telling him why s/he can't get one.

P.S. Just one more thing... If you don't give him one we'll be forced to move your name from the Non-Shame List to the soon to be created, half-shame list. --Spongefrog (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Please perhaps read WP:ISNOT, which indicates that this is primarily about building the encyclopedia, not some form of social networking site. And, for what it's worth, if not bowing to demands for awards is "shameful", I welcome being called that. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry

I am sorry I swear I will never, ever do it ever again. Sorry. Sorry. Please forgive me. I am ashamed of myself. I have learned my lesson. I will become a more constuctive editor and at least 70% of my edits will be articles. Sorry. Thankyou for making me realise my grevious errors (although I will have to move your name).--Spongefrog (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

once again i am sorry. --Spongefrog (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

i am so sorry i am going to look for a bad article and make it fa class. i am so desperate to say sorry i dont care about capitals or puntuation (by the way, I added your name to the john carter disambig but I'm not sure this is appropriate. remove it if it is necessary).

[[File:Olive branch.svg|thumb|left|As an apology, I offer you this award, an Olive Branch of Peace. --Spongefrog (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it didn't work, but you know what it is.

Please forgive me! I can't leave wikipedia until i know i've been forgiven. I would give you the guidance barnstar but i'm not sure if i should (im not trying to be smart here)  :(

I am so sorry I'm considering apologising to Jimbo himself for misuse of his encyclopedia. --Spongefrog (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Smile :)

John Carter, Spongefrog has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

heres a smile i got from gaia octavia agrippa. I think you are supposed to give them to someone else when you get them so I gave it to you. Spongefrog (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

LOOK HERE! (please)

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

--ScribbleStick (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Created Articles

Hey, me again, I was just looking at the list article you've created and was wondering if there is an easy way to create a list like thi, or do you have to do it all manually.

Thanks,

--ScribbleStick (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A Question

Your the only admin I know so I have to ask you. You know how you can change your preferences to know your gender? How does anybody know that you have it set? I know I've not worded it very well, but you get my meaning. By the way, I didn't exactly tell scribblestick to ask for a barnstar, I just indirectly told him to give you lots of praise and fan mail from this page. But I know what you mean. I set a bad example to a new user. --Spongefrog (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot. Thankyou for your merciful forgivveness [sic].

Thanks

Hello. I notice you removed that fake block template from my talk page. Its a little late but thanks. Whats his deal anyway? Hahaha!--Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 20:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to call this

I know I didn't word it well, but what I was asking is how other users can tell what gender you have set. Not that it matters that much, I was just wondering. --Spongefrog (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse

The evidence page said that you would be advocating for Mattisse. If that is so, I thank you for doing that. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I would like to craft some proposed final decisions with you on this case. We can discuss it here, through email, or whatever other means you suggest. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you for agreeing to help Mattisse. I hope your assistance will help her to feel more comfortable and be able to participate more fully. It is important that her concerns are also investigated, so that other editors can either know what to improve on, or be vindicated. Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations

Hello. I was wondering what you think we should do about the continuing problem of people listing the bilateral articles for AFD. Bulgaria–Uzbekistan relations for sintance the same nominator every time claims "no sources exist" yet check the article out now and it has over 30 sources. I just think it is coming to the point that it is getting disruptive having to save them everytime. Can't we come to a formal consensus on whether they ar enotable or not and decide whether all these afds are appropriate?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Proposed merger of WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy and WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy

Hi John Carter. Thanks for letting me know. I have replied in the section that you specified. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Two questions

Hey John, two quick ones - 1) I left a message on my userpage for you somewhere on this page. You didn't answer, were you unable to find it? 2) I left a question on you user page somewhere on this page. You didn't answer, are you still annoyed with me becuase I'm the reason you were removed from the Non-Shame list?

(If you don't answer I'll assume the answer is yes to both)

--ScribbleStick (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I can answer questions about Ekajati and FAR (I close them nowadays) as required. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

Can you do me a favor and reword this. Comments such as "accompanied with the abusive language that seemingly even the arbitrators have come to expect of him, including repetition of that abusive behavior when he didn't get the almost instantaneous response he seemingly thought was his due, for whatever reason." And "shows once again how Future Perfect has extremely serious problems adhering to even basic civility standards. And, yes, repeated exposure to the ill-tempered demands of this party, both on these pages and my own user page, has caused me to basically want nothing further to do with that party if at all possible...," do nothing other than inflame the situation. Also, they may in fact harm your case in the eyes of the arbitrators. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, please try to avoid Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page for the duration of this case. At this point your commenting there also serves to inflame the situation. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I want nothing to do with that person if at all possible ever again. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

suggestion

This is regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Workshop#Future_perfect_be_made_subject_to_civility_restrictions.

Without making a comment on the suitability of the proposed remedy, may I suggest the following reword?

Currently, the proposal reads:

5) Future Perfect be made subject to civility probation for a year. During that time, any uninvolved administrator can block him for uncivil conduct, for increasing periods each time, should it come to that. He will also be subject to being banned from content or other pages should he engage in sanctionable activity on that topic twice during that time, with the ban to last for the duration of the original set year.

Here is my suggested rewrite:

5) Future Perfect at Sunrise will be subject to civility probation for a period of one year. During that time, any uninvolved administrator may block him for uncivil conduct, escalating the duration if necessary. Future Perfect may also be banned from content or other pages should he engage in uncivil activity on a particular topic twice during the period of his probation. Any such topic ban will last for the balance of the civility probation.

Just a suggestion - the grammar nazi inside of me is having a fit... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

EJC AfD

John, I think you intended for the Articles for Deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community discussion to be posted on WikiProject Christianity, but it is not there. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Me again, again

Lolcat-4Dis yuza kan speeks
lolkitteh wif neer neytiv lvl.

Just thought you might like this userbox. Or not. Sorry about all the messages I've posted. --Spongefrog (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey there!

Hey John,

Let me start off by saying that I’m sorry about how you feel towards the Shame List – it seems to me from how you talk about it that you are annoyed, but whatever you’re feelings they seem strong, so sorry. It really isn’t meant to be that serious. However, I know that no matter how much we discuss it neither of us will get what we want, so I won’t bother you with it again. I am slightly curious though as to whether you would ban people for doing something like this (which isn’t really causing anyone harm), even though we are doing serious work to help Wikipedia. The question you previously answered wasn’t quite what I asked (though close, so the answer is probably the same), but when creating a page of articles that you specifically started, can this be done automatically (does that make more sense?) Also you never answered my question about whether you genuinely believe you have deserved all of your Barnstars, or do you think some of them were given as a bit of fun? I hope we can set aside our differences and work together amicably, --ScribbleStick (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Chill please

There's enough going on in ARBMAC2 already. We don't need admins making statements like If Taivo ever managed to get that through his skull...; almost fawning admiration and dedication to ChrisO, your dear friend ChrisO. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So noted. Withdrawing myself completely from it with the exception of one additional change to an existing comment. John Carter (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Poetry collaboration

--Midnightdreary (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should know

because you're the subject of the posting--Caspian blue 16:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be the first to agree that Taivo should have posted that email but you sending it didn't help matters either. I implore you to be more careful. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said earlier I can't imagine wanting anything further to do with the case, and actually removed several pages from the watchlist. For what it's worth, I saw this e-mail as basically a follow-up to the first one I sent him a few weeks ago, which I saw appear on the screen when I pulled up some older messages from someone else. His response was the first e-mail I have ever seen which, so far as I remember, basically included his resume in the signature, which very much caught my attention. I have had quite a bit of contact with several academics over the years, including several e-mails, and never seen anything even remotely like that. It did very much strike me at the time as being more than a little strange. And, well, it would be possible for someone to claim having credentials they don't. John Carter (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

Really? Three cases at once? Are you a glutton for punishment or just a magnet for drama? In all seriousness, drop me a note if I can help in any way. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, three cases at once. Trying to actually avoid drama, believe it or not, although in at least one case I have lost any degree of objectivity regarding one of the other parties. Anyway, one is almost over, one is in the final stages, and the other is beginning, so it isn't that much involvement. Not saying I wouldn't rather be doing something else, almost anything else, actually, but, well, sometimes it seems that things just pile up all at once. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Taivo on North Cyprus

I’m engaged in a debate with Taivo and ChrisO concerning the use of the terms ‘North Cyprus’ and ‘Northern Cyprus’. They both seem to be ignoring the evidence when it comes to common usage of the term ‘North Cyprus’. A google News search result [2] shows roughly equal usage between the two terms and I simply want the article to reflect that by saying : The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)..., commonly called Northern Cyprus or North Cyprus... So, I simply want to add ‘or North Cyprus’. 45,200 news articles [3] use the expression ‘North Cyprus’ but it is being ignored. Some of the sources that use the expression ‘North Cyprus’ are the New York times, The Independent and so on . Just take a quick scan of the google news results [36]. This is supposed to show that the term 'North Cyprus' is commonly used in the mass media. Nothing else. The debate here is about ‘common usage’ not any substantial facts concerning the TRNC. Facts about the TRNC need to be supported by published reliable sources, but the common usage of the term ‘North Cyprus’ is supported by its use in the mass media. The google news results are being ignored by Taivo and ChrisO even though the insistence is about common usage. Here is the article Northern_Cyprus WillMall (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Laying it on the line

John, the WP:AMA was dismantled quite some time ago. I've been accused of being something of a revival of that process (in a different situation by someone who ought to know better). You resemble it far more closely. Does that advocacy serve Mattisse's best interests? The bottom line is I'm proposing nothing more restrictive than I had already proposed at ANI, which had majority support and which probably would have achieved community consensus if the proposal hadn't been disrupted. If you don't rate that satisfactory, then my honest opinion is someone else will come along with a more restrictive solution which will be adopted. It may or may not happen during this arbitration, but it probably will happen and if so it'll be considerably more stressful. You may continue to debate or not, as you wish. Bear in mind that when one belittles the moderates, extremists may step forward. Durova^Charge! 23:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I was reading back over the comments on the evidence in Mattisse's case and I would like some clarification on what you were referring to when you stated in reference to me, "refusing to directly respond to comments addressed toward her", what, specifically, are the comments I refused to respond to? لennavecia 20:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for amending that, and I'm sorry to hear about the news with your family. لennavecia 18:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Full Armor of God Broadcast

Please help save this article, John. I realize that The Full Armor of God Broadcast is not a mainstream Christian Music Industry marketed show and as such has not achieved as much of a high profile level of notability as other corporately funded entities, but that is exactly what makes this show so unique. The show truly has acheived a commendable level of notability in that it has gotten as popular as it has with absolutely NO COPORATE BACKING! That is what makes it truly a cinderella story. You can be the final say on any and all future changes to this article. Please help save this article. You can contact The Full Armor of God Ministry 740.205.6117 173.88.28.69 (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Full Armor of God Broadcast

• Comment Full Armor of God Broadcast is facing deletion. Any advice, assistance or help would be much appreciated! Help represent NON-SELLOUT Christian Metal!! Help The Full Armor of God Broadcast keep giving the devil a blackeye on Wikipedia!Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

Hey john, I heard through the grapevine about your loss. Please know that your famiy is in my prayers. Requiem in pacem. The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God ... they are at peace. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I heard this too from different discussions in the wiki. Dear John, please accept my condolences. Everything (including Wikipedia) is by far secondary compared to this. I will leave you in peace and never bother you again for insignificant matters.--Avg (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello?

Hi JC,

I know you're busy, but you didn't answer my question yet again (third time now). I want to assume good faith, but its getting slightly suspicious. Oh well. Please read the post headed "Hey There" (about 3-4 above this one). Or just ignore it and I'll get the message eventually...

--ScribbleStick (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Partially they haven't been responded to because I thought they were, well, not that important. (1) No one, to my knowledge, bans for such possible misuse of user space. (2) If your talking about a list, not page, of articles you've started, no, it can't be done automatically that I know of. I don't have a page of such articles, which was what was confusing me. (3) No, I clearly indicated that I didn't think I earned them all. But there is a serious difference between getting one from someone else unsolicited and trying to solicit for one, whether one deserved it or not. I had never in any way solicited for any of them, so while I don't think I do deserve them all, neither did I go out to try to acquire them just to have them. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The page I was refering to was this - User:John Carter/Articles,(Though I now see its for articles ceated and edited), but still you really created each lino one at a time? That's dedication! --ScribbleStick (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy John Carter's Day!

John Carter has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as John Carter's day! For being one of our most sensible administrators, enjoy being the Star of the day, John Carter! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 22:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC) If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

Email? Hey I was wondering if you could read through Kareena Kapoor sometime. I know its probably not your subject but I'm looking more for any obvious copy editing/MOS issues that you can find when reading it as in a week or two I'm going to take it to FAC. Let me know.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes

Jayen466 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind...

that I did this.LadyofShalott 19:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I just thought it good to check since I quoted you verbatim. Thanks! :) LadyofShalott 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse

I think I already removed the bit you didn't like - but if not - I'm puzzled now. Which bit is it you object too? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that better?Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. The "bluntly" bit was a bit I removed more or less straight away having thought better of it. You must have seen it in that window. Many apologies. I do think you need to make it clear though, now that Mattisse is posting her own evidence, whether your comments are as Mattisses advocate or whether they are your own view.Fainites ^barleyscribs 06:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A request of you

User:Malleus Fatuorum has agreed to be someone I can consult on "judgment" issues. I already consult User:Geometry guy and User:Philcha. If you would agree to be an editor that I can consult, perhaps I would have a "crew" to help me retain perspective. I don't want to burden editors with the job of "monitoring" me. However, I would appreciate any feedback you can give me regarding my behavior at any time. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:SilkTork has also agreed to be a consultant to me. That makes five, and all are people I listen to and whose judgment I respect. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for Rollback

I saw your name under the willingness to grant rollback if you see fit. I would like to apply, I have been a member of wikipedia since November 15th, 2007, but have recently started fighting vandalism, and I would like to use huggle, thanks --Frozen4322 ^{Talk Stalk} 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

ManeuversGold

Apologies. I had forgotten about this until recently. You had previously asked about this case, and I told you I would look into it. For a master account, I like BoomBoomTwo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). The reason, is that it was the first account we know of to be created at 19:49, October 19, 2008. I'm assuming that this was because BoomBoom (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (not blocked, and rightly so) was already created 2 years prior, so he started with two. As for tagging, we may want to look into it to avoid confusion, although all cases (BoomBoomFour and Teneeeee) link to ManeuversGold. For now I will retag the false masters as socks of ManeuversGold until I get home from work tomorrow. I'll redirect all cases to /BoomBoomTwo and start tagging the socks I know 100% to be confirmed. There is the issue of the socks posted by Enigmaman I'm not sure about since CU just called it confirmed and didn't specify. /end long windedness. Syn 01:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

RCC mediation: Conversely

To NancyHeise's comment:

Yes— stick to what the cited references state— AND the cited references does NOT use the term "Protestants," NOR does it use the term "other Christians." The cited reference does not blaim the term on anyone and we don't have to blaim the term on anyone. --Carlaude ^talk 08:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

Hello, I saw your message here regarding popular pages. Is it possible to access the server logs / database? I was planning to write few of the similar scripts. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out...

As we seem to be the only two current members of the Vatican City WikiProject, I'd like to point out that I've organised the page a little, though a lot of work is still going to have to be done to it if we wish to make it featured (if that's possible (is there such thing as featured WikiProjects?)). Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 21:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

McWhannell

Hi again John. Sorry to bother you, but do you think you could take a look at the article McWhannell. If you get the time, I mean. I think it should be deleted, and I added the deletion template to it, but the 7 days have expired, and nobody's responded. Its just your the only admin who'se spoken to me (except WereSpielChequers, but I just asked him/her something yesterday)

Thanks, Spongefrog (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, its been deleted. --Spongefrog (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Last word

I will not post anymore regarding the Arbitration. This is my last harrah. I do want to show you how things snowball. Just one last example User:FayssalF says to User:SandyGeorgia Not to be unfair to User:Mattisse but you forgot to mention the other side of the story... Mattisse's frequent appearences at the ANI lately Then he gives this link:The following pages matched your search for: Mattisse in enpedia - WP:ANI (new search) This is a search of AN/I links for me. Almost of those are brought by the sock puppets or at their behest. The "Mattisse Redux" was brought by our new mediator for the Starwood mediation, who, when I asked him why he made a joke out of me as a supposedly neutral mediation, and also asked him why, under another name, he supported User:Hanuman Das and User:Ekajati, he said he would answer me over the weekend, and then exercised his right to vanish and his pages were deleted.

I would like to know why this group of editors insistently takes everything I say in bad faith? Why is good faith never assumed for me?

What are "steward substitutions"?

At least people I copy edited for are promoting a Main Page article in my name for June 2 in sympathy for having to go through this awful arbitration. Isn't it surprising how a few invested people people can dominate arbitration outcomes? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mar Abba I

Hi there - I just did a major rewrite of the above, which I see you originally created. I was thinking of taking it to DYK? as a fivefold expansion - would you like to give it a look-over before I do so? Gonzonoir (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)