Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:47, 25 January 2015

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2 as User talk:John Carter/Archive 1 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Importance versus Priority

Hello! I hope I didn't offend you here. I was not concerned about how to assess biograhies, only about the use of Importance versus Priority in doing so, where guideline looks like it's being disregarded by some people almost to an extreme. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Asked a question on my talk. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

How could we go about, if at all, trying to stop a user from continuing to use "Importance", rather than as per guideline using "Priority", in assessing a huge amoung of biographies? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've followed your advice at Template talk:WPBannerMeta, and I hope it's OK that I used some of your wording, since I don't really feel I know what I'm doing. Thank you in any case! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Is is unreasonable of me to ask the user I've seen ignoring the guideline for years to stop for now, while the Template talk:WPBannerMeta is ongoing? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Since you offered to comment on my talk page, you're welcome to chime in on the conversation at regarding a new section with multiple reliable sources.--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Astronomy Project and DRN

If you want to try to moderate the Astronomy issue, you are welcome to do so, but I don't see an issue that can be addressed by moderated discussion. There are complaints about an editor's use of a tool. The privilege of using a tool isn't within the scope of DRN (as you know). There are also questions about capitalization, and I agree with you that discussion should probably be at the MOS talk page, possibly with an RFC. Good luck, but it looks like a case heading for general closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality opened

You 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a new WikiProject you may be interested in

This is a form letter sent out to members of WikiProject Lead section cleanup.

I am contacting you because you are listed as a participant of the now defunct WikiProject Lead section cleanup. I have created a new WikiProject, WikiProject Lede Improvement Team (name subject to change), that likely has the same goals as the project that you signed up for was supposed to have. If improving the lede sections of articles is something you are still interested in, please stop by and add yourself as a participant. As well, if you have any thoughts regarding your previous experience with lede section cleanup, please stop by and share them. Thank you,  DiscantX 08:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Remarkable deletions on Soka Gakkai talk page

Could you have a look at the conversation mentioned? Puzzles me a bit. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: Any particular indicators exactly whose comments or which comments? There seem to have been quite a few lately. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The ones about the Ogasawara incident. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing WER Consultation

I wonder if I might cut you recent comment to the thread How many women have been involved in these discussions? and start a new thread titled 'Special characteristics. There are so many lively threads, which is great, but I'm sure you know that keeping editors on thread topic is like herding cats. Thanks for all you involvement at WER. Sidebar: In case you ever want some "consulting" or insight on one individuals experiences (Me) I just wanted to say that I have taken the Est course (70's), Lifespring (80's) and Landmark (2000+). I watched a little bit of the recent case to combine the articles but I stayed on the sidelines. Also, in the 60's, I was the Building Engineer for a multi-use building in Evanston that had as one of its major tenants----The Church of Scientology. I don't know why I needed to say all that but I just wanted you to know. I never once felt there was the least bit of similarity between Scientology and the other three...even in recruiting techniques. Buster Seven Talk 21:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Buster7: A new section sounds good. Regarding Scientology/Landmark and the others, believe me when I say anyone who knows anything about the topic would be welcome. The idea isn't really so much to merge est/Landmark/etc. but to create a central article, if there is cause for one, which there seems to be. Maybe. Maybe est should be a separate article - honestly, I still don't know. I doubt that there is much real "similarity" between them, other than the fact that they are profit oriented and in the same basic area - actually, if they were similar, one would probably have beat out the other in competition. I think I said to Liz I could even see Scientology become really revived and maybe even theologically interesting if it had a "gospel writer" to update Hubbard, but I don't think that likely to happen. Personally, I've kind of been waiting for NYB to return, which he said he'll do tomorrow, because I think he might be the best "drafter" for anyway RfC proposals which might be put forward. And, maybe, for helping figure out how to format the discussion. None of those I requested involve themselves, other than I think Keithbob, Liz and Maunus, have shown any interest in taking part, but the Macedonia arb was resolved with only three uninvolved parties, so even a small number will do. Maybe check the Landmark talk page for the next few days and see if anything actually happens. At heart, I would like to see the issue resolved, one way or another, and maybe the content improved to a level where most people will leave it alone and spend time more productively elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Buster7: as the first wound up being a typo. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have just now invited Editor LightBreather to invite the 80 or so editors from the members list that seem to her as though they may be women. I realize I do it with a little tongue in cheek trying to make the point that we can't really know the gender of an editor. Its really too bad that the discussion and the focus is now on this tangent but ......Buster Seven Talk 08:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (January 2015)

There is currently a discussion at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#John Carter regarding an issue with which you are involved. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)