User talk:John Carter/Archives/2012/May

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 04:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the
  applications page
  to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 04:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I recall from somewhere that the topic ban notice should remain on the user talk page so other editors are aware of it. If this is not the case, then please just ignore this, else please do as you see fit in the recent case on AN, given that you may know the policy. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case. Anyway, I will leave it to you, given that you may know what to do anyway. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I remembered it from here. But anyway, I will leave it to you. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 05:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 06:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

John, I'm trying to make a new Wikipedia Project for Christian History, and History007 said you could probably help. Can you weigh in on the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity#New_Workgroup_-_Christian_History ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You are receiving this semi-automated message because you are a participant of WikiProject Animal rights. If the project is not on your watchlist or you have not visited the WikiProject recently you will not be aware of some of the changes that I have made to the pages, or aware of an a issue that has been raised about my attempt to re-categorise some of the project related articles. Please revisit the project talk page to add your input. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 06:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 06:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a little on the RELMOS page? I came across you mentioning it on another User's Talk and I had not heard of it before. From my quick browse of it, it looks like it is still in draft process. Many thanks for any feedback. — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 07:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've sifted through a lot of page histories and contributor lists for various WikiProjects in the two years I've been writing the WikiProject Report for the Signpost. In that time I've noticed that your name comes up quite often. How many WikiProjects have you started or been involved in starting? -Mabeenot (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Too damn many, probably. Back some years ago, I was the one who tended to create the page and banner for new projects that had received sufficient interested to get started. Generally, it was because the individuals who wanted the new project tended to not have much of an idea of what to do. In fact, I pretty much sought adminship just to be able to edit protected templates, like WikiProject banners. I also often at least tried to assess articles for the new projects for a while as well. At the time, 1.0 was actively seeking having as many articles assessed as possible, and often it seemed to me the only way to get them assessed was to help create a group which dealt with the articles to be assessed. Kind of stupid, actually, but those were what I laughinly called my thought processes at the time. Now, I tend to think that for the most part virtually every article has at least some project which has an interest in it, so there hasn't been as much of a need lately. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That explains it. Many of those projects are still alive and kicking. Your fingerprints are all over this place. ;) -Mabeenot (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For your dedication to helping out at numerous WikiProjects, particularly your thorough work in article ranking. Khazar2 (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 07:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know more about the classification ABCD of articles, and the arguments that are used to justify setting of a classification level of a certain article. Thank you. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that you would use the word "arguments" in your statement, which seems to indicate that you believe that the subjects are in some way contentious. Also, I am not sure whether you are talking about quality or importance ratings. For what it might be worth, I have recently started tagging some articles as "Top" importance to various religion projects based on their being included in the Lindsay Jones/Mircea Eliade Encyclopedia of Religion, which is regarded as being perhaps the leading reference work in that field. Basically, "Top" importance is supposed to, in general, be given to those articles which are requirements for any encyclopedia. If they are included in that encyclopedia, which has a broad and pretty comprehensive range of articles, those topics are presumably of "Top" importance to other encyclopedias like ours as well. Regarding quality ratings, that is a bit more of a question, and there isn't quite as hard a line there. Quality assessments tend to be based on the standards at

WP:ASSESS. In general, we look for multiple sources of high quality for an article to reach B class or higher. Also, it can often help if one consults other reference sources and sees what if anything is contained in articles or related material in them about the subjects. If you could point out some specific questions relating to individual articles, I could probably give you more details then. John Carter (talk

) 18:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you John for the explanation. I understand that there are 2 criteria for the Classification: /1/ is it in line with the Encyclopedia of Religion /2/ is its contents varied and language structure sound.

May I say that: if our guide in evaluation is a certain book - encyclopedia which “is regarded as being perhaps the leading reference” - then we must accept that Wikipedia articles (in this field of subjects) would be judged by that reference, not by the input of information from other references. To adopt this policy, the preferred Encyclopedia as a reference becomes not a “ground” for judging the article but as a limiting “ceiling”, but I may be mistaken. This is a new information for me.

The article i would like to ask you about evaluating is the Soka Gakkai (buddhist group) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sōka_Gakkai - I’ll limit my inquiry to the last 2 sections of that article: "Reception" (which neutrality is disputed) and final section: "Perception and Criticism". First : the disputed "Reception" has been there for ages. I thought there must be a limit in time to solve this or edit/alter/delete ...but because nothing was done for a long time, I initiated the section "Perception and Criticism". This last section has 17 references from both sides of criticism and this amount of balanced references is comparable to the amount of sentences included, making it an impartial and concise presentation. It contains basically all what the previous to it section "Reception" includes - but in a balanced and referenced editing.

These two last sections are basically of the same contents - only the last section is not disputed and it is supported by both sides references. Is it possible to delete the disputed Reception (as its main points are incorporated in the Perception and Criticism - section, in a balanced and unbiased text) ? Thank you.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think your slight rush to judgment regarding using the Eliade/Jones encyclopedia as a ground is a bit unjustified. Basically, it seems to me that any article included therein is probably as per "Top" priority guidelines ("a must have for any encyclopedia") one of our Top priority articles. That does not necessarily rule out that a more focused "Encyclopedia of Buddhism" (of which there are several) might not also be used. But, if changing to for instance the US, if a comparatively small and highly regarded "Encyclopedia of the United States" has a fairly long article on Los Angeles or New York City, I think logic would indicate that it is probably both important to the basic WikiProject of the United States as well as any more focused WikiProjects like, for instance, on their individual states.

Unfortunately, there is no time limit for anything here. Anything done is by definition done voluntarily, and some people lose interest in some topics rather quickly. Regarding changing the content, starting a request for comment as per

WP:RFC

is probably the best way to go in terms of changing content if you don't want to potentially have some POV-fighter argue against your changes for whatever reason. You probably could delete the repetitive information yourself, possibly by using one of the titles and keeping the better material, and, honestly, you may very well encounter no problems. Regarding NRMs in general, though, there tend to be disputants of some sort everywhere, and they may not do anything until and unless changes to the article are made. AN RfC which agrees with your changes would probably be the surest way to make sure that there are no objections, groundless or otherwise, to such changes. So I would start an RfC and leave some messages at the talk pages of the Buddhism, Religion, and New religious movements projects, and await the outcome.

Lastly, regarding using the Eliade/Jones encyclopedia as a baseline, I do tend to think that in general more or less ensuring that the material in our articles, including both content and references, is substantially similar to that of substantial articles or entries in relevant highly-regarded reference works may well be one of the best ways to go with any of our articles. There is always the chance that there will have been substantial changes in the subject since the work was written, of course, and that should always be considered, but, in general, barring differences arising from our policies and guidelines and changes since the material was written, the content of other encyclopedias is probably a good indicator as to what the content of our articles should be. John Carter (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no information in the article that an orgy is part of Hindu or Buddhist rituals, as in Greek cults. Removed Buddhism too. Also, a general/summary article like orgy or

15:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 08:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 08:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Re " could not unreasonably have my continued adminship open to question" -- nonsense. Restraint and judiciousness in performing admin actions is a virtue, not a fault. What's important is not how much admin work an editor does, but how well they do it.

11:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 09:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

John, there is a blatant troll on the above-mentioned talkpage named "Luciferwildcat" who is there only to harass, persecute, poke fun at the subject matter and the adherents of this recognized religious philosophy. The lack of substance or logic in his arguments there should be readily apparent. Can you please help or does this need to go to AN/I? Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering why you recently put a WikiProject Religion tag on the talk page of the chaos theory article ? Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics which has applications in physics. I can't think of any connection with religion. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I really only know of one relationship. There is an article about Chaos theory in the Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones. That reference source is I think considered one of, if not perhaps the, single most reliable sources on religion, and to an extent philosophy, currently out there. I admit I haven't reviewed the specific content of the relevant article, and on that basis acknowledge that it might, theoretically, refer to something else, although I have a great deal of difficulty believing that is likely to be the case. Right now, I am in the process of tagging all the extant articles we have which have clear analogues in that source. There are several other articles whose titles are such that I cannot be sure if we have an article on the same subject immediately. As soon as I finish the first round of tagging, I intend to check for alternate spellings and the like for the other articles, and, when all is said and done, give out lists of the articles in that source which don't have matching articles here, as well as a list of those which do. I tend to think that the sources listed, and the articles themselves, will be significantly useful in the improvement of many, if not most, of the relevant articles. I will also look over the articles myself, and see what, if anything, strikes me as being necessary to note in our articles, based on the content of those articles. But, basically, it seems to me that the articles about subjects which have articles in what is probably the best extant reference source on religion are probably of "Top" importance to religion. The list of all the articles in that source, FWIW, can be found at User:John Carter/Religion articles#Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones. I think there are around 3200 or so.

Having said that, I should also say that I haven't myself read the specific article, and am not on that basis entirely sure that the content of it necessarily relates very strongly to the content of the existing article. It may well be about "philosophical implications of chaos theory" or some other related topic which might or might not yet have a dedicated subarticle or perhaps best be included elsewhere. Like I said, I am still in the processing of seeing which articles we have and haven't got ourselves. But I do expect to finish in the next week or so. At that point, I should be able to offer more substantive comments then. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 10:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi John, just in case you did not intend it, people have been adding condolences to a main section further up. Penyulap ☏ 01:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 10:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi John: Thanks for your comments on Meher Baba Talk page.

As I laid out, I'll be working to find references outside of Lord Meher, and so I appreciate very much your offer to look for additional sources.

I hope you will consider my suggested approach of leaving the article essentially intact during the re-referencing effort, and support me in that approach. I'm concerned that some of the aggressive editors voicing concerns about 'devotee' works might attempt to (effectively) stub it out by removing facts only referenced by LM.

If it becomes a black and white issue, I'd suggest an like we had with the 2x2 article, where we managed to keep the text basically whole by adding citation needed tags during that Reliable Sources debate. Something similar might be helpful here should the matter arise.

If you don't feel comfortable with my suggestion, please let me know, as I'd like to work in concert with your thoughts. Please let me know, as that's the approach I'm taking.

Anyway: thanks for showing up. Thanks for caring. Means a lot. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right about developing some other pages. Let's talk more when the dust settles. Homunculus (duihua) 22:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi John, a lot of articles on anthropologists and linguists/semioticians have been popping up on my watchlist as you tagged them for WP:RELIGION. I am not opposed to it but just a little surprised since I don't know that many of these scholars have done any work relevant to religion? What are the inclusion criteria for biography articles in the project?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Right now, all the articles I've been tagging are being tagged based on their being included in the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion. It is supposed to be among the best reference sources out there, and those I have recently been tagging have been included as "Religion scholars," as per User:John Carter/Religion articles#Religious scholars. Personally, my hope, maybe by sometime early next month, is also to finish going through JSTOR and assembling a list of the relevant reference sources for each project. My next two similar go-rounds are anticipated for Africa and Philsophy, two other fields which haven't gotten a lot of attention but do have substantive content which we easily should have, and reference books which can help us find bibliographical material and indicate a little what might be worth including and emphasizing. The ER has around 3250 articles in the 2 editions, including a lot we don't have yet, but I do think that, even though the title might be a little misleading, being included in the ER is an indicator of their being relevant to religion, and also that they are, in some sense, important to that broad field. I hope to get together material for articles on the ERs themselves over the weekend, while I lounge around drinking pina coladas (I like pina coladas, OK?) and taking advantage of the poolside service at the little party I'm going to, and that should also help interested editors. I hope, eventually, to even get included in some of the banners "see reference book(s) x for additional material to help improve this article," but that is probably still more than a bit off yet. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

After osting I read the section on Chaos theory above and surmised that it was based on the encyclopedia of religion. Thans for the answer though! You're definitely doing a lot of great work with the wikiprojects there. Thanks for the explanation. Best, ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've gotten myself into a little twist at Talk:Evolution explaining/defening your inclusion of that article. It seems to have been taken rather ill by some of the more fundamentalist adherents of Dawkinsism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Now, Maunus, no personal attacks. Please accept that other editors are contributing in good faith. . . dave souza, talk 12:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hi John, it would be helpful if you could clarify at Talk:Evolution what makes you think that article comes into Top-importance Religion articles, giving a general indication of what changes you'd expect WikiProject Religion editors to make. Thanks, dave souza, talk 12:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting at the talk page. More broadly, would it be a good idea to write a brief note explaining your reasoning about adding these categories, and post it on article talk pages at the same time as adding the categories there? It would make it easier for other editors to find out what's going on, and could be helpful in topics where the addition might be controversial, . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to gain from your knowledge about the issue of continual deletion of text by someone - without giving any reason. Do I have the right to submit a report on Vandalism? To give a precise example, on the Wiki page

) 03:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Appreciate your reply.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 10:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 11:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion worked, in the end, through an unexpected path. Please see:

) 15:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Connection?

I'm curious. What's the reason for this? I'd be delighted to know but I wrote pretty much the existing article and can't really see the connection. Is it the Bruderhof community on the south slope? Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the Category:Hutterite communities is more or less the reason for the Anabaptist tag. You probably know the subject better than anyone else, so I would trust you about whether the banner stays. The one thing I can say to keep it is that, at least so far, it is one of the few good articles I have found about the Anabaptists, and it might very well get included in the related portal if and when I ever actually get around to dealing with the various religion portals. It's one of the things on my "to do" list. My "to do" list is slightly longer than War and Peace, admittedly, but it is on it. Good work on the article, BTW. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't want to remove it. I just wondered whether it was there for the reason I thought it was. I like the idea of it being on a religion portal, actually. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is

, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,

) 23:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)