User talk:Warlordjohncarter~enwiki/Archive May 2009

Virgo

It's ready for the public! It's not exactly what I had originally planned, but it will work. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AncientEgyptBanner

{{AncientEgyptBanner}} does not seem to have the attention needed flag. If it does, the category is not being populated properly. If you have a moment can you investigate. Thank you for all you do. I would barnstar you, but you already have from this project. -- Secisek (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saints portal

Can you offer any suggestions before I head over to Featured Portal with it? It seems to be quite a bit stronger than a number of existing Featured Portals, but I am anxious to avoid a repeat of the Anglican Portal disaster. Part of why I insisted on nailing down the requirements then was to make it easier going forward. Let me know what you think. -- Secisek (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Good job on all the article tagging & categorizing I've seen you doing to Christianity-related articles! TheAE talk/sign 00:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Word. --Aepoutre (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random pregunta

Hey, are you sure that categories are intended to be removed from the article if they can be placed in a category named for the article? I'd categorized them both that way before, but had always been loathe to remove the cat from the article itself. I tried checking up on the guidelines, but gave up rather early :-). If that info. is somewhere specific, I'd love to know where! Cheers! --Aepoutre (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reformed churches

Creating the Category:Reformed churches is goes against to all the intent and purpose of deleting the former Category:Reformed Church-- at least hoe you have use it.
See here for the discussion.
The main category for the "Reformed faith" is "Calvinism" since they are synonyms.
Normally categories of the form Category:XXXXX churches are about the church buildings of that faith. See Category:Protestant churches for examples. So, do you want to convert the category to that or have the category deleted? --Carlaude ^(talk) 19:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference, at least, is in the name they choose to use. I thought that was blindly obvious. "Reformed churches" call themselves that, not "Calvinist." By placing content in a category for "Reformed churches" it tends to make it more likely that anyone specifically interested in those churches would work on it. The comparatively undifferentiated "Calvinism" carries a much more theological than practical sense. And it is much harder to see how anyone interested in their church itself, whichever church that is, will try to find that content in a comparatively largeish category. In fact, the failure to separate them out might convey to them that their individual churches are, in a sense, insignificant, and that might do more to dissuade a potentially interested person in working on it than anything else.

It seems to me, unfortunately, that you refuse to see that difference, for reasons I cannot and will not speculate about. However, I do tend to think that this sort of unilateral action on your part may be one of the reasons that the Calvinism project proved as unsuccessful as it has. I believe I said earlier that part of the reason I thought it failed was because the members of the individual churches in general tend to owe more allegiance to their church than to the theoretical basis of the church. Nothing I have seen since I first said that has led me to change my opinion. I personally think the content related to Calvinism and related entities is much more likely to get attention if the churches themselves, which the members have strong emotional ties to, are stressed over the joint theological basis of the churches, which many/most people spend remarkably less time and attention about. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing me what you are thinking. Any given Church/church may choose this or that word in their name for theological reasons or choose it for non-theological reasons. Sometimes the word result from local tradition or accidents of history. For example, the Scottish and U.S. bodies of the Anglican Communion are "Episcopal" where most all the other Anglican Communion bodies use the term "Anglican". While "Episcopal" can and does have theological meaning in some situations, use of "Episcopal" is here not telling us their is some important trait that these two bodies hold and other Anglican bodies do not. It is, at this point, an accident of history.

While you might possiblly show in some other way that the "Reformed faith" differes from "Calvinism" in some important way, you cannot assume in advance that it does and sort Churches accordingly. The catagorization system purposely avoids grouping things togther when it is only based on a common name. Here is a recent example that deletes a category for this very reason.

While I also agree members of the individual churches in general tend to feel more allegiance to their church than to the theoretical basis of the church, and doing stuff to help any Calvinism related entities is good, I do not see what your actions are doing to help that. (I am not saying they do not-- just inviting you to tell me more if you want to do so.) It seems advisable to me to group the Calvinism/Reformed bodies togther regardless of their name. I know many churches considser themselves Calvinism/Reformed but have neither word in their name. --Carlaude ^(talk) 19:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are tring to refering to this post of yours.
First of all that CFD was had nothing to do with my objection to the creation of Category:Reformed churches. I think a category for organizations that are "Reformed" was a fine idea but my objection was to the name was purely gramatical. As Shawn in Montreal in put it, "Any organization can be 'reformed.' The upper case on Reformed is of little help, since it could be a proper noun or just sentence case." You will also note I had no preference between "Category:Calvinist organizations" or "Category:Reformed tradition organizations"
Second, I invited you to respond in a number of ways to that post of April 1, such as requesting a citation for your view and an explination of what your view way. Way you had given me however was only the inmormation that you did dissagree (strongly) and demands for me to undo edits. This gave me nothing to disscuss. You might also note that others at the CFD that you directed to the "issue" found-- like me-- "no such thing clearly".
I did reply, and thanked you for the chance, once you posted something of your reasoning-- that is today.
So "the rule may not apply in this case as it is not the only way in which the groups are united". What groups? Groups that are Reformed and/or Calvinist? -- then that is what unites them?
Groups that are Reformed but not Calvinist? --I agree that the rule may not apply in such a case-- but how do we know there is any such difference between "Reformed" and "Calvinist"? If we do not know what the difference is, how do we know if there is any notable difference? --Carlaude ^(talk) 22:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of Adventist articles

Hi John Carter, thank-you for your work in assessing Adventist articles recently, particularly the "class". However for "importance", you changed many articles to "Top" importance, which was apparently accidental. I have changed them back; although have reassessed a couple. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Newsletter delivery

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 - 06:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Highways

Hi John. I wondered if you could do something to set up an assessesement thing for this? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks. Actually there is also another major project which hasn't got anyhing yet. Thats Template:WikiProject Protected Areas which of course covers all the world snational parks and protected areas, I have no idea why these two projects being seemingly hige have not got any assessment yet Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yes I think it makes sense that way. There is even a new historical sites project which I'm vaguely attached to which will also overlap (again) with some of the other projects. I set up the WikiProject Africa Protected areas taskforce myself but so far we can only use the africa templates and include the protected areas template in general rather than giving an assessment. 13:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a member of the group. Can you say something on the project talk page and I'll offer my views? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John

I just noticed your edit summary here, and would like to ask what is it "I claim"? Niko Silver 01:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claim in question was your assertion that the name ROM was taken for some sort of nefarious purpose. John Carter (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "taken" you mean "first chosen"? I did not assert anything of the sort. In any case, whichever reason was for "taking" the name RoM, fact remains that it presently is used for nefarious purposes. But, as I said, this should have nothing to do with our policies, and sorry for indulging in replying to the curious. Niko Silver 18:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that you are correct. However, to categorically say as much, without explicit sourcing from the parties invovled, is a violation of several policies. There are several comments already on the page in question saying that we do not judge the intentions of people, we simply report on the information we have. You seemed to be trying to say that the name could be invalidated on the basis of some claim, which is probably related to a BLP and thus requires sourcing from the party or parties involved directly, that their motivations for doing so were less than laudable. No such direct sourcing has been produced, and would probably not be particularly important if it were. The country's name, according to its own documents, would remain the same one way or another. Basically, the entire matter of why they chose the name is, at least relative to the subject at hand, irrelevant. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the nefarious purposes see the relevant exhaustingly sourced section at our featured article: Macedonia (terminology)#Ethnic Macedonian nationalism Especially read (so-called pro-Macedonian) Danforth's quote and also read the last sentence of the section (the one with the 8 refs). And I'm not saying the name should be "invalidated" because of that. Actually if it wasn't for the rampant nationalism I wouldn't even care about the issue. My only note is that ambiguity fuels nationalism (especially for lay-people who could not understand the difference between Macedonia, Macedonia and Macedonia). It could all be avoided if each of them had a non-omitable qualifier to signify the difference from one another. Now aaaaaall this is absolutely irrelevant to WP policies, and should not affect our editorial decisions; I was just replying because I was asked, and sorry for indulging. Niko Silver 18:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't see a lot of likely logic in the above comments. The number of people who are likely to type in "Macedonia (country)" and not know that the article they're looking for is the ROM strikes me as being almost inconceivably small. Most people who don't write wikipedia aren't going to think of that particular phrasing. Much more likely will be just typing in "Macedonia", and the Macedonia page does as good a job of disambiguating as I can imagine. In short, the whole effort seems to me to be almost futile. I honestly cannot see what the big fuss has been about. Now, if the United Kingdom decided to officially change its name to Brazil, then there would be definite cause for concern, because there already is a country of the same status with that name. But that isn't the case here. What is the case here is that there is only one country with the name, although there is a region of another country with the same name, which might have better claim to it. But the existing page on Macedonia does a sufficient job of disambiguating there. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I didn't make any wp:policy based comment in the above. Those were real-life arguments in response to real-life questions in the talkpage. It is in real-life that people confuse the three-four Macedonias. I am not trying to convince you to change your mind. The policy based comments are in my "opposition rationale" right above the poll. Niko Silver 22:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opposition rationale however seems to have little if anything to do with policy, so it is at best weak. You appear to think that the problem you are trying to avoid is the denizens of the ROM labelling themselves "Macedonians". I cannot see any logic whatsoever to that conention. The FYROM designation also contains "Macedon", so they could just as easily call themselves that based on that name and the fact that "Yugoslavian" is today comparatively meaningless. I understand that you thought you were making valid points. Note that someone on the talk page, however, justifiably considered much conversation against policy and guidelines and removed it. I wish I could see a reasonable argument to support your contention, but, right now, I can't. John Carter (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John. The thread was correctly removed, and real life arguments should only serve to inform so that we compare our wp:policy judgment to that of our conscience. I respect your opinion, and I'm not trying to change it in any way. I admit my rationale has some points which may be considered weak. It will all go down to how many will consider these points weak enough to turn it down in the end. Niko Silver 10:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your other (off-wiki?) note about the name FYROM including the "M" element, just to note that the Greeks have nowadays dropped the ridiculous ultra-nationalist position demanding No-Macedonia-in-the-title^TM that brought them in this dead end, and now they just ask for a "qualifier" to be added next to the name "Macedonia" (some UN proposals were like "North Macedonia", or "Slav Macedonia", or "Upper Macedonia", but they were all turned down by the X-Macedonian government who persists to be called simply "M" without any qualifiers whatsoever). Many details on this are in the Macedonia naming dispute article. And again, that should not affect your WP judgment either. Niko Silver 10:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The List

John, thanks for coming in. It isn't that the allegations are serious, but that the actions I'm trying to describe are serious. I've been dealing with this other person for months now, and I'm completely at a loss. He habitually deletes sourced material, claiming that other articles must exist, and yet when I offer to work with him to help create those articles, he refuses to do so. This just isn't sincere. If he wants the other articles, I've been willing to help him, even though I've cited Wikipedia guidelines to him that the other articles are not necessary for this article to exist. I know it looks odd to you coming in to have someone apparently calling another person names. Honestly, I can't think of a term for his uncivil actions other than the one I've used. I've even asked for another term to use and the other party refuses to supply a different term to describe the action. I think I've been more than fair, and completely collaborative in spirit. But collaboration doesn't work with someone who is demanding things that they don't want: such as other articles, or a different term for me to use. If he demands something, then he should allow me to cooperate with him to get what he wants. If he refuses, why demand it in the first place?

So, which is worse -- demanding something you refuse to help create, or pointing out that this is what is happening. Also, which is worse -- habitually deleting sourced material, or pointing out that this is what is happening.

In my view, the actions are more uncivil than the description of those actions. And my offer to help create the articles he claims to demand is entirely civil. It is the refusal to collaborate in his own demand that is not civil in the least. Again, I thank you for showing up. Please encourage this person to help create what he is demanding, or to stop demanding it. I don't care either way. Once he starts agreeing with himself, I'll know which "him" to collaborate with, and I'll be most happy to do so. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John -- thanks for your second note. I've invited the other party to create a term that describes his actions. As long as it is an accurate term I'll be most happy to use it. I must confess that I have trouble creating a complementary term for an uncivil action, but I HAVE asked for help. I'll even ask yourself -- what term do you use for habitual deletion of sourced material, when that material has been defended by a number of editors citing Wikipedia guidelines, and those other editors have even offered to help you create any other articles you claim to demand as a precondition for the material you are deleting -- and yet you refuse. (That's a generic "you" and not meant to be yourself). That's what is happening here. If you doubt that, then you can offer to help Jayjg to create those articles and see how much he really believes in his own demand. I'm serious -- try it and see how far you'll get. If you get farther than I have, I'll be glad to help as well. The offer to collaborate stays open, no matter how severely it gets slammed in my face.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, thanks for your third note. As I've said on the talk page, I've cited Wikipedia guidelines several times here. The additional articles are not required in this case. I'm not the one demanding they exist, but I've been willing to help the person demanding they exist. The problem is that he demands it, but refuses the help. That's just not consistent. Either demand it, or don't -- I don't care which at this point, since I've offered to help either way. But he doesn't seem to want what he says he wants -- and I can't read minds.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I've quoted this several times from the notability guidelines: "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." This is such a notable event. When the other articles have been created, they've stood unchallenged even though this was the only notability for the individual. There are five or six of these now, and it's wasteful. Since they all have the same notability, then list them in that single notable event, without 37 articles. However, I've offered to help the other party if he demands it. I think it's contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, but I'm always willing to collaborate. But he needs to make up his mind.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John -- stop threatening and start discussing Wikipedia guidelines. It's not arrogant to expect better of an administrator. But it is arrogant to keep threatening someone who has stated a willingness to be corrrected according to guidelines. You can attack, ban, block, fight, gang up -- or simply engage the guidelines and discuss them. I've invited correction. But I do not respond to bullying tactics. I expect fairness regarding edit wars, and I expect respect of guidelines and correction by reason. How about start trying. Bullying is poor form.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John -- consensus requires some guideline to form a consensus about. So far there's just myself and one other person who've even discussed a specific guideline. I said that I'm willing to be corrected. Please show me according to guidelines how this is to be understood. Consensus isn't even begun until guidelines have been engaged. You know that. You're an admin. Now, I'll be offline until at least Saturday night. You have plenty of time. Please take five minutes to show me how to understand the guideline. It won't just help me, but all involved. "There's more of us" isn't consensus if the guideline isn't even addressed. You know this. Take your time. Take a few deep breaths -- and respect Wikipedia guidelines. Lead by example, my friend.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - April 2009

Bimah

John, at Bimah, I'm a bit confused about the derivation (it looks good) from Gk bema (pronounced in in koine Greek, bima). Isn't bamah (not as in Oh bama!) in the OT a raised stone platform for cultic practices? With your extensive knowledge of religious literature, could you perhaps check? Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bamah was indeed mainly referred to Canaanite (i.e. practices within the Israeli pre-kingdom tribes) cult and ritual. It actually is now considered to be behind the classical Greek Bōmos, 'altar', but in Homer a raised platform, for the Greek word has no Indo-European etymology. Since the OT is concerned with districating the old from the new (Israelitic) dispensation,I can see how bamah would not be taken to have anything to do with Bimah by conservative scholars. But to derive a perfectly good semitic bmh root from Bēma means that the bimah must have first entered Hebrew after Greek pronunciation, around Ist century BC/AD, altered the sound of 'ē' to 'i', which is rather oddly late for a word used in priestly offices in the conservative world of that time. (Only an historical Hebrew dictionary could clarify this). Well worth thinking about. Thanks for the link to that other page. I was thinking of a gift to Avi for his promotion, some edit he might enjoy, and that came to mind, of a thousand things. Cheers, John Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, BDAG places the grk as refering esp. to "judicial bench" with a later derivation of "speaker's platform" - taken as a loanword into rabbinibal judaism (BDAG, βἢμα, 3). If that helps. Athanasius1 (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Athanasius1. One always defers to authority, except in the real world. It's used in the Septuagint which is BCE, for a raised speaking area, podium. I still wonder at its adoption into rabbinical Judaism, which means post Ist century, on phonological grounds, because I vaguely remember that Jewish catacomb inscriptions here in Rome use Greek Beta for Latin consonantal 'u', suggesting the labial plosive has slipped into a fricative by the 2nd century (which would, with the other sound shift e/i) give one at that time the possiblity of a 'vima' pronounciation, not the expected 'Bimah'. Still BDAG is authoritative, and it's not my area. Thanks to you both.Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

JohnCarter, thanks for the warm welcome. It is nice to be around wikipedia. Still trying to figure out where to spend my time, and what to focus on. If I can help you at all, just drop me a note. Athanasius1 (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saints past collaborations

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Saints past collaborations]] to articles/subcategories that belong in it.

I blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Reply Zoo Fari 17:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece etc

Do you think we can rescue souls from Hades? LOL. This is truly frustrating. While I have some empathy for the grk position, I have no sympathy for it: not that sympathy would be a driving concern in this case, as policy is quite clear. Maybe I need a shot of Ouzo? ;) Jim62sch^dissera! 18:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Explained - Prod

Hi, I declined your proposed deletion of the above article because it had been prodded and contested in 2006. I've nommed the article for AfD instead, here. Best, – Toon ^(talk) 22:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old requests for Oriental Orthodoxy peer review

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Old requests for Oriental Orthodoxy peer review]] to pages that belong in it.

I tagged the category. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of tagging and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to remove the tag if you wish. However, removing the tag will not prevent deletion of the category if it remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josephus

Hi John. Thank you for your input on my talk page. Regards --Chris Cohen (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes...

I guess it's bound to happen on a site like this: sometimes you are going to learn about something you wish you didn't need to know existed. Ugh - we humans can be wonderful, but we can also be horrible. LadyofShalott ^Weave 02:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Co-sponsorship

Sure thing, and I've responded to the ANI thread (sorry for the delay, I was at lunch). I'd be happy to do that. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus assessments

Hi John could you set up assessments for Belarus? See Template:WikiProject Belarus Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I tagged a category as category class and nothing showed. I wish we could get some sort of individual assessment of the Central Asian countries too but we know the reaosn why, Latebird. I lost my temper with him a few months back and said he is the most stubborn person I've ever encountered in my life. He drove the editor, a pro cartographer, you know the guy who made all our maps o provinces and counties all over the world away from wikipedia because of his treatment of the Mongolian maps and saying how useless and false they were. Nice guy. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna (art)

Hi John, you rated this as start... I am not sure why. It seems better than that... And I did not write it, but it looks good...

Cheers History2007 (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no worries, I will add more refs later. Cheers History2007 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Move of the article Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia by User:ChrisO and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,--Yannismarou (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eithe

As the ancient Greeks used to say..."eithe!" (I wish!) I am really amazed at the pretension, at how this story has been twisted! Did you notice how the discussion topic I renamed to "Why do you guys object to the new name of the article (Macedonia)?" was conveniently introduced as "Why do you guys object to the current name of the article (Macedonia)?" I really was not a strong advocate of the Greek positions in the past, where history was not the question. Now I truly understand their fears and objections... GK1973 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+1

Re [1]: for hitting the nail squarely on the head, +1. Knepflerle (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re our fave

thanks [2]. I owe you a good deed in return. Jim62sch^dissera! 00:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia survey

The ArbCom has voted to freeze all Macedonia-related renaming until after the case is concluded and then to permit it only as prescribed in the final decision (see WP:RFAR#Motion). This obviously makes the ongoing survey on Talk:Macedonia moot, as any conclusions can't be implemented, since ArbCom's decision will override anything that the survey decides (not that there seems to be a consensus anyway). Could I ask you to close the survey in the meantime? I'm sure you and others will be taking the opportunity to put forward arguments when the case opens on April 22nd. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure, actually – personally, I find ongoing collection of further opinions might still be useful there, so why not leave it open? Especially since it's actually been garnering some non-trivial input from people other than the "usual suspects", so it's actually enriching the picture somewhat. Of course I'm just as sick as the next guy of the predictable votes from the Greek camp, but I'm quite happy to listen to new outside opinion regarding the relative weight of, say, the "Ancient Macedonia" reading compared with the modern country reading. Just my 5c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair point. It's up to John really, it's his survey. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no advantages to closing the survey, as the input might be useful to the ArbCom. Therefore, I think it makes sense for the survey to stay open. Also, frankly, given the recent behavior on the article, I am forced to question the motivation of the person making the request. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for advice on de-orphaning the article on Kitamori

Many thanks for your suggestion that List of Kyoto University people would be a good additional link to the article on Kazoh Kitamori. I have now done this, so there will be at least five links from the page. Providing that lists, unlike categories, count as links which can de-orphan articles, I think that the article can now lose its orphan tag (it should cerainly do so if it receives more than five incoming links from other articles in Wikipedia). Many thanks again for the advice, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romanesque architecture

Hello you self-proclaimed "arrogant-bastard-with-a-morbid-sense-of-humour"! I notice that you just gave the Romanesque article a B-Class rating. Is that because of your sense of humour, or is it the other matter?

I'm on the architecture project, and I say that it isn't a B-Class anything! Only I'm not as sufficiently arrogant a bastard as to put an A on an article which I wrote 95% of. But you could. .... and whatismore, you ought to, since it is at your discretion to do it, and both of us have reviewed it. You could confer with Johnbob who is very cluey about this period...

I am very hesitant about putting up articles for GAs and VGAs. The process is revolting.

Cheers!

Amandajm (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John! are you grading for Christianity specifically? I thought it was for Architecture. Never mind! Amandajm (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feeling rather depressed. I don't usually have anything to do with the Castle article, but I decided to check it, because it wsn't linked to Gothic. Anyway, a vandal had been at it, some 8 days ago and had made a lot of changes, many of which passed as bonafide edits. The watchers of the page discussed the matter, reverted two obvious errors and simply left all the rest, including the change from Romans to Goths in the introduction, and the deletion of a list of important architects. The particualr vandal is really insidious. One of the things that he does is introduce wads of highly specific info that might be accurate but disrupt the flow of the text. (While this is a frequent problem with good-faith edits, this person is sufficiently subtle to do it deliberately). While I can understand how a silly kid might delete a page or write a rude word, or "Josh was here!", I find it quite distressing that a person can take such pleasure in subtly undermining what others are seeking to create, and are prepared to put considerable time, effort and intellect into doing it.

Amandajm (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian theology work group

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Christian theology work group]] to pages that belong in it.

I tagged the category. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of tagging and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to remove the tag if you wish. However, removing the tag will not prevent deletion of the category if it remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity banner

Regarding this project banner, you might save yourself a lot of work by using the meta template {{WPBannerMeta}}. Let me know if you'd like any help with it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm building a new version in Template:ChristianityWikiProject/sandbox. It's nowhere near ready yet though. That's a monster template you've got there. It might take a little while to finish, but it should be more up-to-date and robust in the end. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

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:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nix eagle^{email me} 03:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship

Dear Mr. Carter: I was not aware that I still needed a mentor, although I thank you for your kind offer. All of my edits since returning have been in good-faith to help improve Wikipedia, and I am proud of them. I have received praise from other editors on my talk page, even being called an "Awesome Wikipedian".

I am very grateful to Wikipedia for giving me a second chance. If you have an issue with any particular edits I make please give me the benefit of your opinion. I will always listen to a positive voice. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me. I updated my userpage, which I had not touched since writing it in February. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel TV/TomCat4680

TomCat4680 already has been blocked once for 24 hours, but it was lifted after he apologized and said he would stay away from the Fuel Tv page. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 16:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I appreciate your effort and help to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia! Caspian blue 19:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding... me actually!

I want to thank you again for taking the time to add me to list. I've noticed that some may not be aware of the correct sequence of events leading to several blog/forum posts bearing my nickname. I'll keep it short. A few days ago, after I came back from holidays, I saw a message in my mailbox about the current issue regarding Macedonia's Wikipedia entry. Although I contributed to many Wikipedia entries before, this was the perfect time to register an account in order to keep track of the case. I also posted in grk.forthnet.users a message, in case anyone else was interested in voicing his opinions. This newsgroup is also indexed by Google; someone took it from there and posted in several blogs/fora. Others also took it and repeated the same procedure, sometimes leaving the message intact, sometimes not. Some Wikipedians found this message in a certain blog and their poor command of the greek language led them to believe that a) this is my blog and b) I'm calling for waves of nationalists to flood Wikipedia. How odd is that! I do not claim to represent anyone, but since the english version of Wikipedia isn't very popular within the greek-speaking community, I believe that my voice would be a useful addition to the ongoing dialogue. This is the translation of the original newsgroup message. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WPAGS importance rating

Alright, I got a third and a fourth opinion on this from other editors just to be sure about the rough consensus. Seems we do not want any importance rating in this case. –Holt (T•C) 23:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

request for formal consensus

In regard of ISKCON article I would need some of your help. Can you please formally organize a consensus vote on what sources should be allowed on the article of ISKCON and if schismatic groups should be represented in a separate section of the article. I appreciate your help. Wikidas 07:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imhotep

I wonder if you might want to comment at Talk:Imhotep. Some issues have come up there that touch on your area of expertise. Ladyof Shalott 17:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture in Saudi Arabia

Hi can you kindly explain to the speedy tagger Library of Congress Country Studies material is public domain. It is explained on both his talk page and article page but he just aint getting it.Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better now?

I really don't want to bother you, but is it better now? Is this suitable for the Workshop? Also in the process of gathering diffs, although others already used some and I'm not sure if repeating them is allowed or encouraged. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was me guv!

I see you were accused of saying that the ethnic list on the Macedonia arbitration page should be deleted, when it was me all along! I wasn't hiding (honest) when it was going on. If I was logged on I would have owned up, seeing as I'm that kind of guy. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about your user name. I was thinking it could be from a character called John Carter in some old science fiction books about a guy living on Mars. Of course, I could be way off the mark, just curious though. Jack forbes (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope they make a good job of it. I haven't read those books for years but I do know that they don't often get it right when translating books to the movies. Fingers crossed though. Jack forbes (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Ps, the one I remember them getting right was Dune. It wasn't a financial success but I thought they got it spot on. Jack forbes (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I don't think I saw you state this on the workshop of the arbitration. ChrisO recently said "all that oppose are Greeks" more or less. Please restate that there if you want to. John, I guess the involvement in certain wikipedia articles to support obvious ethics can label someone as Greek. See here[3]. Maybe change the nick to John Carter the Greek? :) Thank God none said you are actually from Mars. Regards Shadowmorph (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John

Thanks, but I will never seek adminship. I'm too flawed to do it :) man with one red shoe 18:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, sir, I said the same thing several times, and didn't see myself as being at all a very strong candidate. The voting on my RfA, which ended 146 for, 0 against, 1 abstain, kind of told me I might be wrong. Actually, I'm still more than a bit stunned by that. But based on what I've seen you do have the level-headedness and neutrality which I find in the best candidates. Anyway, I can understand your not wanting the post. Like I said, I said the same thing myself several times. You might find the idea mentioned again by various others in the future, though. I hope so anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read a bit your RfA, I would not qualify for sure, I have no contributions that I can speak of and I don't know even half of the rules/procedures that you know about Wikipedia, and of course I would still be not interested in getting an admin position. But thanks anyway for thinking of me, besides I'm just one inch away from being accused of ethnic profiling... let's see how this case goes. I wish the arbitrators actually read between the lines and see what a specific block of editors did under the shield of "Assume Good Faith", basically trying to impose their POV talking advantage of Wikipedia's policies -- at least that's my view. I don't see a clear solution though, you can't ban people that didn't infringe clear policies, you can't "ethnic profile", I wish there was a way to test the POV and have other people than Greeks or Macedonians express their ideas about the name that Wikipedia should use and debate based on policies not on feelings or political orientation. man with one red shoe 19:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is one way to do that. It's the one that I proposed based on how the ArbCom decided in January to handle Irish names. They took three uninvolved admins and had them make the decision. I'm thinking something like that will probably happen here as well. I imagine the rest of us will be allowed to contribute to the discussion, but the final decision will probably be in their hands. In the Irish case, their decision is listed as being non-negotiable for two years therefater. I have an unfortunate feeling that might be the only workable solution in a lot of these cases. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's acceptable to me, having uninvolved admins judge the case is way better than having 20 involved party "vote", war edit and filibuster endlessly in the talk page. man with one red shoe 19:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I was profiled as a nationalist after I voted on the straw poll at the Greek talk page. I happen to be a Scottish Nationalist which has nothing whatsoever to do with Greek Nationalism or anything Greek for that matter. I have actually taken the talk pages of the disputes off my watch list as I believe it is all getting far too heated and frankly my opinions on the matter are not strong enough to continue my involvement with it. Jack forbes (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as an American of German and Norwegian ancestry I was branded a Macedonian-nationalist as well as someobne devoid of any knowledge of the issue. ROFL.

Red Shoe -- why not give it a shot? Jim62sch^dissera! 20:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm honored that two people thought of this, I really am, but no chance. Thanks. man with one red shoe 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Well, it goes up every digit, so the next one is 1,000,000, so far the highest is about 311722. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big losers that need help...

You might not remember me, but you were the editor who assessed the Old Time Missionary Baptist page for me. Well, I need help with it. I can't seem to figure out how to reference two different sources. Every time I try, it gives me a cite error message (apparently I can't put it on your page, else everything written after that stops, so I linked it) I understand what it means, but I can't figure out how to fix it. Can you help me? And if not, can you direct me to a person/place where I can get it? Joshua Ingram (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Luckily, I had it mostly right. The thing I got wrong was, when I referenced my first and second references, I forgot to put quotation marks in it. (ref name=something without quotations>blah blah blah<ref/) I got it after a few minutes. Do they let you know when they do an assessment? I requested one almost a month ago, but nothing ever changed. I now realize I didn't make the correct references, but nothing was ever said. Is there some way, other than going through a month full of logs, to find out if they did one? Joshua Ingram (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I Wikified the living crap out of it. Do I talk to you, or do I request another assessment? Joshua Ingram (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I wanted to thank you for taking the time to help me. After accidentally clicking on your contribs link, I realized just how incredibly nice you are for helping me with my relatively small problems. Thank you. Joshua Ingram (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment on the page, but it's mostly do to your guidance. And you more than deserve the award. Josh ua In gram 16:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still adopting? Josh ua In gram 19:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like you haven't already unofficially adopted me. I would really like it if you would, though. Josh ua In gram 19:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. I was just tired of them attacking me, and I slid a little. I took tit for tat a little too far. Josh ua In gram 00:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to ask you, (assuming you have seen the most current update to the OTMB page, as of now) do you think that the article has been Wikified enough to take the thingamajig at the top down? Josh ua In gram 12:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you spend much time on the Jesus Christ article? And if you do, can you tell me why Mary Magdalene and their "relationship" isn't mentioned? Josh ua In gram 02:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord, what did you do to the idiot that keeps cursing you out on your userpage? Josh ua In gram 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposals on Macedonia

They were right on the money. Just one important addition that you should include. Before all other procedures, the name of the main article should be reverted back to where it was. That would be the only neural starting point. Shadowmorph (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FoF

Hi John, even though I think I know what an FoF is, what does FoF stand for? Dr.K. logos 16:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're BACK!!!!

I'm so so happy. Was just going through the history of Preity Zinta and noticed an edit of someone very familiar. I couldn't believe, and I'm so happy you're back with us. So first, welcome back. And secondly, how do you feel? Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I guess you saw the reversion I did on the 21st on the article. There doesn't seem to have been any real long-term damage as a result of the mugging, so generally OK. There's still a lot of work to do with the various Christian articles, particularly tagging, and that is taking up a lot of time. And ArbCom is always a thrill. So I guess things could be better, but it would probably be a lot less interesting if they were. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look

at this: Quicumque vult? Thanks. Athanasius1 (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

templates (the adding and removing of them)

User:Jakezing has undone some of my edits that added the WP christianity template and removed the WP LDS movement template. His reason is that he does not believe that the mormon religion is christian, and that the WP LDS movement template would be better suited for the articles. I have referred him to you. I will accept any decision you make. Thanks. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

Never assume shit about me man, it only pisses me off. Second i didnt read all of that because of rule one of my talk page, and secondly, i also used the fact removing the LDS project tags would take them AWAY from the LDS projects ability despite the fact the LDS is awhat those articles are about. Therefor removing them from a specefic wikiproject and putting them on a mother wiki rpoject for the topic in general is a mistake.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concern troll

No it doesn't. A personal attack predisposes a person being attacked. My general comment does not refer to any person in particular; it belongs to a summary of the long-term situation.

It can be viewed in another way. Wikipedia has an article on trolls. Does the existence of this article violate the policy of WP:NPA? Most certainly not -- and this holds even though it is, theoretically speaking, possible that some people might uncomfortably recognise themselves when reading this article. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 23:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		This edit is brilliant! It's unexpected, it's witty, it's recursive -- everything one might seek in a good metajoke. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 23:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I've responded to yours on mine. PetersV TALK 00:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states was bound to go off the rails, considering Hiberniantears' attitude expressed before coming to that page, where he claims "problem is going to be centered on a group of editors who are either nationalist, or just anti-Soviet or anti-Russian, and that these editors are creating the illusion of consensus by way of stonewalling against any other points of view". The problem with this, putting the fallacious stereotyping to one side, is that he refuses to provide any reliable sources to back these other view points that he speaks of. Wikipedia isn't an venue for publishing original research, and as I pointed out to Hiberniantears here, there is a lack off any source material on which to base discussion on the "multiple viewpoints" that Hiberniantears wishes to discuss. Sure, there is the political view of the Russian government (they have yet to release any kind of analysis to support this view), but how much weight do we attach to it? It is already covered in the article. Iran denies the scope of the Holocaust, should we now give equal weight to their viewpoint and claim the Holocaust is the unbalanced work of "a group of editors who are either zionist, or just anti-Palestinian or anti-Iranian"? Martintg (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph and Imhotep

Sorry about that.

I was disturbed about the comments of other editors that the bible is not a reliable source to clarify historical issues even on Biblical Characters.

Some of the Books of the Bible represent the historical records of Israel for that period (eg first and Second Kings, Chronicals). In fact most books of the Bible contain historical information that can often be varified in non biblical literature. There are not many other books of that vintage that have been preserved so well. The bible is primarily a record of God's dealings with man, in particular, Israel in the Old Testament and the Gospels and the Gentiles in Acts and the Epistles. It contains reliable historical information and discusses places, people and events that are mentioned in non biblical manuscripts and heiroglypics.

Obviously, it is necessary to quote the Bible when discussing biblical characters, sites and events. (should it be a note or a reference?)

I understand that a reliable source is required to support any correlation of Biblical Characters with other Historical material.

When editing, can I make changes to the comments of others in articles. Otherwise, how can an article be improved or tidied up?

I suppose it is not fair to do this in a discussion page. But people did it to me first!

Articles are not meant to be discussions and it is not considered good form to put your name in article anyway.

When is a change considered vandalism and when is it not.

For example, my edits of the article on premillennialism were removed and called vandalism.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My article on Joseph and Imhotep was not original research. It has been suggested by many others, most notably Ronn Wyatt who has conducted considerable research on this topic. Wikipedia does not regard him as a reliable source even though his works are being increasingly recognised (Mt Sinai, red sea crossing at Nuweiba, Gulf Aqaba). Now some Israeli Rabbis claimed to have recovered the ark from tunnels under the temple mount and the Israeli government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen his excavation of calvary. The red material that was analysed and found to be living cellular material with 24 chomosomes turned out to be Chiton of snail origin - so he did not fabricate his findings - he just concluded wrongly as to what it was. This therefore does not invalidated any of his other work.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I resubmit the article on Joseph and Imhotep once I have sorted out my references?

--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia currently does not offer any candidate for the Personage of Joseph in Egyptian history and does not offer any explanation for why he did not make it into Egyptian history. It is therefore unfair to call this article a fringe theory. fringe theories. What is more, this article is not original research original research. I am able to quote original sources of quite some depth. In particular, Ronn Wyatt who conducted a lot of research in Egypt on this very issue. Wikipedia has disallowed them because Wikipedia dose not consider Ron Wyatt to be a reliablereliable source. His discoveries are, however, being increasingly recognised, in particular the site of the red sea crossing and the true Mount Sinai in Arabia. His also claimed to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant in 1982. He was accused of fraud because he could not prove it. His reputation suffered as a result. Now the Israelies claim to have it in there possession and the Israel government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen Ronn Wyatts explanations of the Calvary escarpment. The brown/red material that Ron Wyatt had analysed and was said to be living cellular material with 23 chromosomes turned out to be chiton - most likely of snail origin. He was not fraudulent, he was just wrong about it being blood. Given the nature of archaeology and science, we all make these type of errors. We propose a hypothesis, we test it and if it is reproducible then we keep the hypothesis until it is disproven and replaced with a better one.--Drnhawkins (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merci

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks very much for removing that vandalism from my userpage. I've been having a lot of trouble with that IP range recently. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion request

As I'm not yet a party, I have a request. Since Future Perfect at Sunrise admitted that he communicated off-wiki with ChrisO, their correspondence could provide instrumental evidence for the case. Here I asked him if he would agree - provided that ChrisO agrees also - to post these messages for parties to examine. I understand concerns about privacy, though this is about a Wikipedia entry and not a personal matter. If we don't review the contents of these mails, someone might accuse them of something that they didn't do; even for collaborating with others too. If we do, we could still not be sure if they are forged, but in the spitit of good faith they are acceptable. I believe that this could be a valid request, if everyone involved agrees. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maltzew

Hi John, would Probst Maltzew (see Abda and Sabas), Probst Mayhew (see Menologium der Orthodox-Katholischen Kirche des Morgenlandes) and Provost Alexios Maltzew (see Euchologion#Publication) be the same person? If so would it be helpful to use a consistent spelling, or perhaps create redirects to the latter article? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:LDS-SPA1000

Would you be able to keep an eye on this user; as per this thread, he seems to have misunderstood the instructions you gave him and is replacing all instances of {{LDSproject}} with {{WikiProject Christianity}} without either the latter-day-saint-movement=yes qualifier or a separate banner – consequently this is going to dump all the LDS articles into the "generic" pot, which will be of little use to anyone. I'll go through his contributions to date and fix them, but won't be round to keep an eye on him if he continues – and I don't want to block if I can avoid it. – iride scent 22:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this section is about me, I guess this is the best place to comment. Concerning the comment you made at WP Panama, what do I do with all of the temples in the U.S.? I am also adding the LDS Work group (part of WP LDS movement) to all temples. However, when I added an importance to the LDS Work group section, it would not show. Could you please look at the Salt Lake temple for an example? Thanks (and sorry for any trouble I have caused you) LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I also add a template for the city that the temple is located in (i.e. Seattle Washington temple, WP seattle). LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 20:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autograph

Thanks, normally when people sign my Auatograph book, I sign theirs, but leaving you message will do. Thanks, it is nice to be appreciated every once and a while, and if you ever need anything (Mostly about Insects and Jehovah's Witnesses) you know were to find me... well here! Bugboy52.4 (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, Bugboy 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.

Damërung gave me this, and it says to pass it on to a good friend, so pass it on! Bugboy52.4 (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thoughtful response

I am not sure about the move, the page might end up at Macedonia (country) or back to the old name, but I think ChrisO explained his reasons and nobody seemed to attack the reasons, most of the people attacked the technicality of the move and, sorry for the word, they bullshit around about the "consensus". As I said before his move is "BOLD" only if you take in consideration the strong POV against the name... But I don't care deeply about the name that it will end up being used for that page, I do care about FYROM name pushing on Greece page which I think is unacceptable because of the NPOV principles. And yes I agree with Fut. Perf. that this move was uninspired especially at the moment. man with one red shoe 17:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Christian films work group

Sure! I'd be happy to grow something together. What should I write about? And how long? Thanks. TheAE talk/sign 18:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll write something up. TheAE talk/sign 18:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I came up with:

“

Hello fellow WikiProject Film members! I was recently apart of founding a task force, so this is the story. For several months, I would not only contribute to Christian films, groups, etc., but I'd also see other users working on similar articles. I really wanted to create a project for us to work from. Filmcom contacted me about trying to get a task force going, so we began working together on it. When it appeared the idea was dying, we continued to fight, and several other users joined!

Thanks to the efforts of many users, I'd like to introduce you to the Christian films task force! We are currently having a bot tag all Christian film-related articles, and we are working to define our project scope. We now have our own icon and shortcut (WP:CFTF), with ten users signed out thus far - these are just some of the things that have been happening in the last few days. If you have any interest in joining such a project, we welcome everyone to join and get involved. TheAE talk/sign

”

If it's completed opposite of what you were wanting, feel free to discard it or I am willing to redo it. You may also change it, or whatever else goes into writing a newsletter. Tell me what you're thinking. Thanks. :) TheAE talk/sign 19:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, good catch. I haven't written "WikiProject Christianity" for awhile, so I didn't have that mindset in writing it. :) Thanks! I've removed the last part of my signature ("sign", etc.), as it wasn't needed. Everything looks good to me! TheAE talk/sign 19:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]