Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Ghana! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 3,474 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in Ghana.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Thank you for your kind comments about my Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia, at my appeal request to work on Quality improvement for an article I'd previously brought to WP:GA quality, Typewriter in the Sky. You didn't have to go over there and put yourself on the line like that and comment on my behalf, but you did anyways, and I thank you for it. I'll continue to strive to better Wikipedia by engaging in the Quality improvement process, and bring articles to WP:GA and WP:FA quality. I'll work with my mentor The Rambling Man and do my best to learn from his example and guidance. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cirt, believe me when I say that you don't have much that you need to learn from anyone around here, and I sincerely hope that the Arbs come to realize that soon. Your contributions are some of the most consistently impressive we have around here, and it is an honor to be able to help out in a small way someone who has done as much as you have, over as long as you have been here, and still has the spirit and drive to improve this site that you have. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, John Carter. I hope, in time, your views regarding my Quality improvement efforts will be shared by more editors within our Wikipedia community. Hopefully someday. :) But for now, I'll go back to attempting to improve the articles that I can — to higher levels of quality including WP:GA and WP:FA. If you've got any advice on how to bring about the change in perspective you wish for, above, John Carter, I'd appreciate it. — Cirt (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1068 of
Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Four years now! Miss you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just thinking here. Maybe one way to revise things might be to create an umbrella entity, perhaps a Dispute Resolution Committee, which might be eligible for election.

At least in my eyes, one of the big reasons for the problems of the ArbCom last year was that both User:Newyorkbrad and User:Kirill Lokshin were gone, and there were no immediately obvious replacements for them. User:Doug Weller and User:DGG, the two members of the board who would at least strike me as being the leading candidates for the sage positions vacated by those two, were both new that year, and, given the greatly reduced number of cases lately, it took a while for them to know the ropes and the others to learn how they work. The reduced caseload and possible/probable loss of institutional memory with the loss of old hands could well have been one of the big problems then.

I know a hell of a lot less about MedCom and other entities, but I think maybe one way to ensure that we don't lose the institutional memory aspect might be to create a DRC from which the arbs for any individual case can be drawn. Granted, I don't expect Brad to want to join every case after retirement, God knows I wouldn't want to, but it could very easily be very beneficial for the other members of the committee to have access to him for a particular case, maybe even in a "rotating chair" or something like that.

So, as a sort of proposal, have elections every year to elect a largish number of members of DRC or similar. Say, for instance, 60 members. All qualified editors are welcome to sign a predetermined number of petitions for candidates, up to and including "draft" petitions, and those which get sufficient signatures are on the ballot. Then, allow each qualified editor to vote, preferably for only a smaller number of candidates, for instance 30. The top 60 votegetters are determined, and then those 60 individuals cast the final, deciding, public votes for who are the 12 individuals on the "standing" ArbCom, MedCom, ArbCom clerks, AE enforcers, and the like. I figure only about half of those 60 would actually get "standing" positions, which is really what I would want. This would give the bottom 30 finishers a chance to maybe take one a case or two to see if they really want to do that. preferably with the help of an old hand, and maybe more actively seek a "standing" position in a following year if they want to take that role on regularly.

But, if all 60 were, at least theoretically, capable of filling any of the positions for a given year, we might have a much better chance of avoiding the discontinuity of community memory and leadership which I think happened when Kirll and Brad left the ArbCom.

Anyway, any ideas? John Carter (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 1) Arb com is complicated enough already.. We should be looking at procedures to simplify the process.

2) Perhaps I have a prejudice here, but the difficulties last year were not due to lack of experience of myself or the other new people. If anything, perhaps there were last year altogether too many people on that committee whose long experience led them to an apparent commitment to entrenched ways of doing things; I at least certainly felt difficulty in getting an effective voice, especially in internal discussions. But the real difficulties were due to the unfortunate but unavoidable situation that several major cases had no really satisfactory solution. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you, having been there and all, would probably know a hell of a lot more about it than me, who wasn't there. :) But, maybe, the "entrenchment" you speak of might be a symptom of loss of earlier leadership, I dunno. Regarding simplification, I think in a sense this might be a bit simpler. One of the problems that several have commented on is that few people really read the questions to candidates, and the sometimes questionable nature of the questions, and act however they would anyway, generally based on possibly questionable opinion they have as outsiders to the system who know the system even less than well than I might. Creating a publicly seen final discussion among the electeds might make it easier for at least that select group to deal with what they might see as real issues involved. And, a proposal like this, of the House/Senate type, sort of, might be a bit easier for a lot of people in the US anyway to understand, although I admit it might be harder for non-US people or people who don't have a bicameral system to follow. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not quite clear on your proposal: how are the 48 members not on the standing sub-committee "drawn" to participate in an arbitration committee task? Are you envisioning that for each task, be it a case, an appeal review, responding to incoming email, and so forth, that X number of people be drawn from the pool of 48, and added to those from the standing sub-committee who are also participating in the task? On a side note, I don't see how this relates to a bicameral system, where there are two separate deliberative bodies, and they act as a balance for each other. (Unless you are suggesting that any task be replicated by the standing sub-committee and the rest of the larger committee, independently?) This is more like an organization forming a sub-committee with a set of standing members and a set of rotating guest members. isaacl (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, I think it worth noting that the proposed board is where not only the ArbCom itself would be drawn from, but also maybe the MedCom, the Arb clerks, the regular AE enforcers, and other similar functionaries be drawn from. Basically, if something like this were done, the 60 or so would elect all the holders of those positions, which would probably be about 30 or so people. The other 30 who aren't selected and haven't yet filled such functions could, at request, if they wanted to, maybe ask to take part in specific processes (individual Arb cases, Med cases, clerking for a single case, etc.) which more or less requires selection of some sort, as either an observer or additional member of the "team", under the supervision of an existing "team" member to see if they might think they want to more actively seek such a post in the future. And, yeah, you're right, it is more like legislative committee appointments and officer selection than a bicameral legislature. John Carter (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the additional clarification of your ideas. From your description, it sounds more like a pool of alternate members, or a pool of apprentices. isaacl (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just casting around for things to clean up and fix in Wikiproject Skepticism, and I noticed the article Isidor Sauers. WAY back in October 2007 you tagged into the project (here's the diff: [1]). I'm just curious - why? I've pored over the current state of the article and done some Googling of this fellow and I can't for the life of me figure out his connection to Skepticism. Apologies in advance if I'm missing something obvious here. --Krelnik (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Krelnik: I'm guessing the article has been changed a bit since then, maybe. That page is currently included in the Category:Scientific skepticism, and that was probably the reason for the tagging, but it might be that the content supporting for that categorization has been perhaps removed. John Carter (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought the same thing, but I dug around in the article history, and I can't find any "smoking gun" removals of text that might explain it. Here is what the article looked like the day you tagged it. Ah well, just one of those mysteries I guess. --Krelnik (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi John Carter, Just wondering why you added Alejo Carpentier to the list of articles "belonging" to wp:WikiProject African diaspora and rated it importance=Top on 22 August 2012? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)please ping meReply[reply]

Hello, John Carter. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Donald Trump article will be an extremely hard article to bring up to average Wikipedia standards, not to mention GA or FA. It will probably involve much fighting and many months. Either that or one group of people will wear out the other 2-3 groups. Compounding the problem is that Trump is very controversial. About 52% of people voting did not want him. Another 25% had negative feelings toward him even though they voted for him. That leaves maybe 20% that either support him a little or a lot, 80% don't like him or viciously hate him.

I feel it is beyond my expertise to fight a talk page battle so I will leave it to more experienced hands like you (or 3 others that I wrote to). Below is a link to my sandbox, which shows an edited version that does 3 things. 1. It fixes the jumping back and forth of related areas that are placed apart (there's quite a bit of that). 2. Trims down some trivia. 3. The lead represents a better summary and also is the permitted 4 paragraphs. I did not edit the political and campaign sections yet and don't intend to.

Here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Usernamen1/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=754347721

Consider commenting on the Donald Trump talk page about this sample revision. I do not plan on extensive discussion on the talk page and will leave it up to you. Let me know what you think.

Disclaimer: I am a foreigner and not a registered Republican or Democrat. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear sir I had made a request for TFA of Mother Teresa i have seen it has a multiple of issues and I have seen it has been removed from Good article list also I request your help in the article as I find u more helpful in making the article great in a Catholic topic --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 07:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my talk page - I got tipped off - and here in Die Welt. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And a happy new year as well JarrahTree 23:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC) You may well be semi retired - I think of full retirement when I encounter some of the genius and sheer mindless perversity on this damned thing, but, you have always been there to help with the damned project tweaking, it is both appreciated and honoured - and may it serve you well sir ! (I am sure that it channelling a John Lennon line, but damned if I can remember from where ) JarrahTree 23:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this point, I am far from being an everyday editor here like a lot of others are, which is a form of retirement, and am also trying to develop wikisource on my own, and, maybe, talking others into it, which reduces the amount of time I spend here. And I thank you for your very kind words above. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am now even honoured to have you as an eminent page stalker while I sleep (at 8+), my thanks and appreciation moves higher... may your capacity to sleep well in face of the world changing friday, this friday be allayed (or should that be the propensity and propinquity for sleep if we allow the terms to invade wikipedia talk pages) by residence in a country of very strange people JarrahTree 00:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comment at EP. I'm always glad to hear that I'm not totally off-base. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I need someone who has access to some decent sources for the geography of the Maldives to resolve a question at Talk:Inguraidhoo (Raa Atoll)#Requested move 5 January 2017. Thanks for whatever light you can shed on it! — Gorthian (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, so, in 2008 you created this article Zuyud, with the "Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates. Washington, D.C. : Defense Mapping Agency, 1987" as a reference. I have not for the life of me been able to find a copy of this document (or book? I'm not sure) to verify or find any other information about this place. Do you still have your copy, or know where to find one? And if so, could you point me towards it? I haven't been able to find any other sources for anything about Zuyud and I'm hoping that the Gazetteer might help. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2017 (U

@PMC: It is listed at WorldCat here but from what I remember it didn't have much more than I added to that article, considering it is public domain as a government publication and I could reproduce most if not all of it anyway. John Carter (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Not sure if my Google-fu was weak or what but I couldn't find it for the life of me. :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've relisted an RfC that was run at WT:Admin in Sept. 2015. It is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 3 as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A high school in Malaysia Hello, John Carter. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Secondary school Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Nvidia Shadowplay • African nationalism Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructionsReply[reply]

But now that he's posted to the article talk page I doubt he'll read mine. There is something weird going on with the university press release. Nothing Jordanian is a reliable source fir this so far as I can see. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, Til Eulenspiegel was once of those I was alluding to -- he also edited as Codex Sinaiticus at first, I believe -- but the one I was indirectly praising was Yom, who wrote some of the Ethiopian articles which properly were graded as GAs. (And I seriously wish would come back & contribute more.) In any case, we never had more than 3 or at most 4 editors at once who were fluent in Amharic, Tigrigna, or Somali, so even banning one would be banning a significant share of them. And if we include all three languages, I believe as many as three or four who have these skills have been banned. Sigh. It would be nice if this were a statistical anomaly, but IMHO they are more zealous about getting their viewpoints into Wikipedia than is good for them. It's a symptom of living in a part of the world where freedom of speech cannot be taken for granted. -- llywrch (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi John

I have removed 3 red-linked categories from your userpage, by converting them to links.[2] So the text still displays, just a little differently.

I know that they were intended to be humorous (and I particularly like "Bozos with delusions of self-propelled interstellar travel"), but unfortunately the category system was not designed to be used this way. Per WP:REDNOT, either the category should be created, or else the nonexistent category link should be removed or changed .

That's because categories are intended for navigation, so unlike articles (where redlinks are often appropriate), redlinked categories are always an error: they are a broken form of navigation. That's why there are there various tools to help identify them and either remove them or turn them blue. The most useful tool is Special:WantedCategories, which amends itself to strike out categories which have been reslved. Unfortunately the work of editors who go through that list fixing the errors is impeded by the presence on that list of userpage categories which are intended to remain as redlinks. So some of the errors never get cleared, and the first page in particular has many such categories. This obviously makes the cleanup harder.

I wasn't aware of this myself until last month, and when I saw how my redlinked categories were impeding cleanup, I removed them, and got to work assisting the cleanup. I hope you'll agree that converting the categories to redlinks isn't too big a price to pay for helping maintain the category system.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I may be confused but this seems like part of a two-pronged "attack" whereby the cat specialists are arguing that redlinked categories cause maintenance problems and that, when converted to bluelinks, they should be deleted per USERCAT. There is an ongoing discussion, the latest being a RfC, in which you, BHG, has been vociferous. Assuming that I have read it correctly (and it is convoluted, so perhaps I have not), this conversion appears to be rather disingenuous. I know for sure that the cat people have messed around like this before but I'd rather hoped that you were above such shenanigans. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sitush, a little AGF please. There are no shenanigans. There is a genuine maintenance problem, as outlined above.

If there is a consensus to allow new types of user category, so be it. But whatever happens there, redlinked categories impede maintenance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help......

In the Article Page Saint Nicholas......

I placed in references to the Book St Nicholas by Joe Wheeler & Jim Rosental......

However they have been changed to a vague and un-sourced wording.....

Could a ruling be made about sources and references, particularly, when someone is using sources for their own thoughts and writings.... ???

I have quoted my comments in the talk page..... below:

MacOfJesus (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"..............In the Article Page..... the key reference to the Saint's name is now:

"....Saint Nicholas became the model for Santa Claus, whose modern name comes from the Dutch Sinterklaas, itself from a series of elisions and corruptions of the transliteration of "Saint Nikolaos." When the Dutch originally came to America and established the colony of New Amsterdam, they brought the legend and traditions of Sinterklaas with them. The New Amsterdam Dutch later shortened "Sinterklaas" to "Santa Claus." [53]......."

This has the only direct reference to Joe Wheeler & Jim Rosental's book St Nicholas.....

The direct wording is...... Pg 166:

"... The New Amsterdam Dutch shortened "Sinterklaas" to "Santa Claus". They mean the same thing: "Holy" or Saint" Nicholas....."

There is no mention of "the model of Santa Claus"...... There is no mention of: " a series of elisions and corruptions of the transliteration of Saint Nikolaos..."

That is foreign to the book...... and the reference does not fit......

The proper reference to this has to be found.... or it has to be deleted......

"a series of elisions and corruptions" indicates that there was a history of the change of the name..... Hence, a reference is needed for this.....

Using the book mentioned to this vague reference dishonours the Authors of the book......

I will be seeking a category listing and ruling on vague / un-sourced entries.....

MacOfJesus (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

MacOfJesus (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)........"

Hello

For the past months I have been viewing your works on Wikipedia. They are truy a pice of art. New to the website, I was wondering if you could be my mentor? It would be greatly appreciated, as we have the same interests and knowledge. Coolwikieditor (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This kitten says "Taxation is theft."

Tallahassle (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, assuming you have access to Holweck, F. G. A Biographical Dictionary of the Saints, please would you check whether Mor Abraham is different from Abraham (bishop)? – Fayenatic London 15:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there,

As one of the active participants (and coordinator) of WikiProject History, I'm hoping to solicit your feedback regarding a handout Wiki Education is developing for students who want to work on articles about history-related topics: User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/History.

It will be a print guide that history students will receive in addition to other resources, like our interactive training and brochures that address broader aspects of editing. We're hoping to get some community feedback by the end of Sunday, September 3rd, in order to meet a printing schedule. Thanks very much for your time. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Catechetical School of Alexandria...... ~~ There are two Article Pages of the subject where there should be just one. The School developed and grew greatly and was joined by many from East & West. It was in existence before Pantœnus, but he made it famous... The Article Page needs to be re-written. The historical beginnings and development is obscured in the two Article Pages.... MacOfJesus (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The two Article Pages are: 1/ Alexandrian School & 2/ Catechetical School of Alexandria.... The origins of the one School go back to St Mark, Second Gospel writer, according to St Jerome....

Such an important School that developed into a seat of learning and excellence to be shrouded in obscurity gives credence to many Universities and Colleges refusing their pupils to use anything from Wikipedia... MacOfJesus (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This is such a key Article Page..... I feel totally on my own, shouting..... MacOfJesus (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC).......Reply[reply]

   Dear John Carter, 
   How do I go about 'proving' my position....    I have with me the Historical accounts.... This key page is in disarray.... MacOfJesus (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear John Carter, Yes. I am talking about Gary Habermas who as has written extensively on the Resurrection of Jesus.

See: Talk:Gospel of Mark Son of God Mark 1:1 for the reply to my question I asked Gary Habermas. Thank you for having an interest in this subject. I suspect he was ignorant of the answer. Miistermagico (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi John Carter,

I'm failing to find a way to parse this edit of yours in a way that relates it to the thread preceding it. Might you perhaps have intended to place it in reply to a different entry elsewhere?

Thanks for your time and attention, ––A Fellow editor talk 11 December 2017 (UTC) ---

I would have thought the connection rather obvious. Another respondent had commented on suggestions for articles not yet here or in poor shape. I provided a link to a few pages listing among other things articles in other reference books, some of which we don't have yet, and an indication of where many more works containing encyclopedic content we probably don't have yet can be found. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another respondent had commented on suggestions for articles not yet here or in poor shape.

... in § Beyond reproach? of User Talk:Jimbo Wales??? I think one of us may still be missing something (could be me). Please quote and link to the specific passage you responded to so I can better follow what you're getting at. ––Fellow Editor– 23:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it would have to be you who missed HJMitchell's comment two comments above my own.John Carter (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah! you're intent was to suggest (to me, somewhat indirectly in an unsigned comment) other possible things to focus on, yes? ––A Fellow Editor– 18:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes and I think that you really need to maybe learn a bit more about the project by maybe reading policies and guidelines. Also, FWIW, my comment was clearly signed, so I don't know what unsigned comment you are referring to. May I suggest that you do something recommended to you either there or here before posting here again, as, at this point, I don't see much if any benefit to further conversation here. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies, it was an instance of Template:Undated, as so, which had caught my eye, not Template:Unsigned. I've been a Wikipedia editor for multiple years and have read quite a bit of WP:P&G ... Is there perhaps something of particular relevance you'd like to draw my attention to? ––A Fellow Editor 20:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe you put this in the wrong place. Your first comment, and my reply to it, are two sections above that. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is John Carter violating IBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Reply[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is John Carter violated his IBAN again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi John Carter,

I have removed a recent statement you made at WP:ARCA in accordance with your community-imposed interaction ban. The edit does not fall under the dispute resolution exception because you are not engaging in dispute resolution with respect to your IBAN. Requests for reconsideration of this clerk action should be directed to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given this diff, you have violated your interaction ban with Hijiri88. Given that your previous block for violating the interaction ban stemmed from initiating an arbitration proceeding related to Hijiri88, I believe a reasonable editor in your position should have known that the edit you made was a clear violation of the ban. In particular, your comment here doesn't make much sense to me given the circumstances surrounding your first block. You've been blocked for one week for the IBAN violation. (And as a cautionary note, please be sure not to violate your IBAN while responding to this message.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have closed the ANI discussion. Please note that there is a consensus that further infringements will result in a longer block, possibly even indefinite. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would go so far as to say “probably” an indefinite block. An IBAN is considered a “last warning” and repeatedly poking at the edges of it has led to many an indef block or even site ban, so in the futre, please, if there is any chance a particular edit could be taken as violating the ban, don’t make that edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An amendment request, requesting suspension of Remedy 3 of Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88. The case has been amended as following:

Remedy 3 (Hijiri88: Topic ban (I)) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the area defined in the topic ban remedy. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 12:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for an apparent unwillingness or inability to follow an interaction ban. [3].

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Received your email. I don’t know why you wouldn’t be able to edit this page, I just double checked to make sure I hadn’t accidentally set the block for that, and it looks like you should have access. My only guess is that maybe you aren’t logged in, as your IP would be autoblocked as well. If that’s not it and you still can’t edit here, send me another email with the exact message you are seeing when trying to edit this page and I will look into it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

John Carter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No clear evidence of my intentionally violating an interaction ban was presented. My attention was drawn in the first instance regarding the Bible verse article by the ANI thread on the topic now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive973 which contains neither a comment from the other individual nor any mention of him. On that basis, I believe it can reasonably be stated that the interaction was basically accidental, unless we are now declaring that the edit history of an article has to be thoroughly checked before any comments can be made. There also was no direct interaction on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible page. There had been however several extremely suspect actions by others which might well qualify them for sanctions of some sort, although those sanctions seem never to have been placed. These include the fact that the original thread was placed at Beeblebrox's user talk page instead of at a Noticeboard which is the preferred choice, potential violation of WP:FORUMSHOP. It also is worth noting that the original post did not call for action against an i-ban violation but in giving me some sort of warning, which to my understanding is not permitted in an i-ban. I can see no reason whatsoever for two parties who have had little if any prior involvement in the discussion to have been pinged as well, particularly as both have some recent negative history with me. I believe such behavior on the part of the other party potentially qualifies as some form of harassment or canvassing. The fact that MjolnirPants was explicitly said to have been canvassed by email by the other party is another matter of some concern. The fact that the other party explicitly attempted to put prejudicial words in my mouth in the thread as a form of evidence against me certainly to my eyes qualifies as an explicit violation of the i-ban. Yet none of these problematic edits by the other party have received any sanction, and I who could I think only be found to have not checked the history of one page and making a secondary response to a question on a WikiProject talk page was. I believe these concerns raise some serious questions regarding the judgment of the involved admin in this instance, and request a review of the block by an uninvolved admin to see if it was in fact justified and to determine if the conduct of the other party in the actions leading to the block may have included explicit undeniable instances of violation of the i-ban and possibly other policies and guidelines as well. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock appeal focuses almost entirely on the conduct of others rather than your own. I would suggest that you read this section of GAB before your next appeal. I think the block was within Beeblebrox's discretion, and for an unblock, you will need to explain why it is no longer necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note to reviewer: See this discussion, in which I give an outline of the events JC has described as "canvassing". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The thread in question is obviously the one that should be reviewed, particularly the comment from the thread opener about emailing the above editor. And as per WP:CANVASS, contacting other editors based on their previously established opinions, presumably about individuals as well as topics, is considered disruptive. Having said that, I had and have no particular reservations about the specific comments made by the above editor in that discussion, and actually tried to complement and thank him on his user talk page for his comments, although I am not sure those comments were taken in the spirit they were given. John Carter (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a lot of dishonesty in JC's unblock request and this comment, but in the interest of not starting a huge debate, I will limit myself to pointing out that JC was blocked for tendentiously and repeatedly violating his IBAN despite multiple warnings, and now JC's unblock request consists entirely of an obliquely worded series of accusations against the subject of that IBAN. A clear head might note the irony in that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The obfuscation and dishonesty is more from you than for from me. The thread which resulted in this block, on Beeblebrox's talk page, referred to only two alleged interactions, one on the WikiProject Bible talk page where I responded to a comment with a bit more data than Hijiri88, and one in which I started a thread about the use of the word verses in an article on the Bible. I believe it would be in the interests of the reviewer to review MJ's previous attempts to use this talk page as a venue for preaching to me, which he has never denied, which led to my having to tell him not to come to this page to preach to me, to which for whatever reason of ego he felt obliged to respond, after I had archived the thread, with a picture of Carl Sagan and a comment that he sees himself as some sort of new Sagan. In light of his having taken on presenting the other side here, possibly because Hijiri88 is subject to a 30 day block by prior ruling if he ever posts here again, I guess I am now obliged to formally request MjolnorPants under any identification to not post on this page again. I personally believe the reviewing admin will probably display a better grasp of the details of the i-ban and other relevant behavior guidelines involved than the blocking admin did in a rather obviously rushed judgment. And, I guess, if whoever sees this thinks that the issue is too complicated maybe to decide here, I would have no objections to having the matter reviewed at a noticeboard,with I guess an indication of such here so that I might be able to have some input. But I do tend to be much less active and likely to look Thursdays thru Saturdays. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is intended as helpful advice, not criticism: John, if you want to be unblocked I highly recommend a very thorough reading of WP:GAB. I know you and have had positive interactions with you in the past, but with the current unblock request and discussion I would be very hesitant to grant this request. ~Awilley (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The comments above by me relate to what I see as the extremely dubious conduct and judgment of the admin involved. To the extent that such questions regarding the judgment of that individual must relate to the conduct of others involved they do, but I have tried to limit such comments to the minimum to make the points related. I am myself frankly less interested in seeing the block immediately lifted than in having the situation reviewed by uninvolved administrators because as I have indicated already, here and in an email to Beeblebrox forwarded to the ArbCom, I believe there is more than sufficient cause to very seriously at least question his judgment. Having said that, my thanks to Awilley for his response. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, you previously participated in a request for comments regarding whether faith healing and whether it is a pseudoscience. I would like to inform you that there is currently an open request for comments that is revisiting this question that you might be interested in participating in. I am notifying everybody who participated in the previous request for comments.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... and again today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC) )) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! I am looking to revive the Cuba WikiProject over at WP:CUB! I am contacting you because you are on the member list, but I want to see who is willing to still work on this. If you are interested, please let me know! I would love to see this project as successful as possible. Feel free to contact me with any questions - please ping me so I don't miss it! Have a great day, Snowycats (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Works by Pope Paul VI requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe Beeblebrox has blocked John Carter indefinitely for disruptive editing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Jerm (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding ((Subst:Xmas4)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

I know you're blocked, but I'm grateful for everything you've done. Your efforts will never be forgotten. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy 2020! Jerm (talk) (formally JudeccaXIII) 18:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

I know you are blocked but AS SAID ABOVE: --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:South America/Class has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Rivers/Class has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Christian list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bani Fasan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bani Fasan (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:WikiProject Cell Signaling has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:DGA-icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article The Church of Scientology (Melton) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to meet SIGCOV. A single review in a minor subject journal, and two mentions in book trade publications insufficient to meet NBOOK. An 80-page booklet not a significant work.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ausgewählte Akten Persischer Märtyrer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ausgewählte Akten Persischer Märtyrer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roswell, Texas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roswell, Texas until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 09:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:WikiProject Antarctica/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:WikiProject Music venues task force has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]