User talk:John Carter

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 4 as User talk:John Carter/Archive 3 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Introducing the new WikiProject Ghana!

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)

Invitation

Greetings sir, I'd like to invite you to check out the new page I created: Ideas and Contributions of Ghulam Ahmed Pervez, resulting from the discussion/advice/suggestions from all the editors involved in the Parwez discussion (especially yours.) We have a strong consensus on all the major issues now. The bio page and this newly created page are both in a stable state and on the path towards growth. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Germanic Neopaganism

Thanks for your comment, but I was referring to modern Odinism and Asatru as global movements. --ThorLives (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Thanks for your ping at here, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to give comments there based on whether this affects my speech. So I thank you for your kind words about me, but unfortunately for the time being I'm afraid to use my speech in that capacity. Unless you had any other advice to me about that, good luck to you. — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That specifically mentions only "articles," not other pages, and I would certainly think that under the circumstances "expert input" regarding the controversies would be welcome, but I can see your reservations, and will specifically request there that any comments you might make regarding the issue itself on that page be considered outside the scope of the ban. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather not provide my speech in that capacity, John, unless I know for certain that I would not be sanctioned for my speech. Unfortunately, I fear that I'm not sure even though it only mentions "articles" as you say, and not other pages. Unless I hear otherwise from a formal capacity statement, I'm afraid to speak there as you've asked. Let me know if you have further advice to me about that. Thank you very much for your value of my input, I really appreciate it. — Cirt (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Speaking only as an individual arbitrator, I would not consider a meta comment about the topic area at the Motions page to be a breach of your topic ban provided you stuck to the point and did not discuss the pros and cons of any individual NRM. I will flag this question up to my colleagues though to hopefully give you more certainty. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Thryduulf, that is most appreciated. I'll respectfully take no action with regard to above until I hear back definitive clarification about my potential ability to participate in discussion about this issue. — Cirt (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Thryduulf. Stick to the meta-issues around the motion and you're fine. Courcelles (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Courcelles, for taking the time to comment here, it means a lot to me. I'll have to think about whether or not to participate in discussion there. I don't want to get embroiled in anything and though I'm heartened that my input is valued, I'll have to ruminate on it a bit more. — Cirt (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

John Carter could you summarize the basis of what's going on, and specifically what you'd value some input about? — Cirt (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the motion that is proposed is to basically remove the existing sanctions on a rather sizable number of articles and topics which broadly fall in the field of NRMs into a broader group of sanctions to cover the larger field of NRMs in general, possibly with some limits as to time of origination of the groups in question. It has been argued by Courcelles that there hasn't been a lot of evidence presented that the broad field of NRMs is problematic. That strikes me as a not unreasonable comment, given the lack of evidence which has been presented, but my own feeling is that, for the most part, the topic of NRMs/cults is really not a lot different from those of pseudoscience and alternative medicine, both of which are, if I remember, similar topics to NRMs. They all seem to deal with the sometimes questioned use of the terms themselves, particularly including the usage of the world "cult" and similar. They also often, because of the comparative newness and sometimes comparable lack of coverage in really independent reliable sources, often present different faces in various ways to the outside world. Personally, as I don't think all "pseudoscience" is necessarily controversially described as such, although that entire topic area is currently under sanctions, I can't see any really good reasons for not instituting a similar broad sanction here. But, anyway, that's just my opinion. Does that make it any clearer at all? John Carter (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Your assessment is most logical. I agree with your analysis and recommendation. Your comparison to pseudoscience and alternative medicine is also quite appropriate. — Cirt (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

There are many books that class your above-mentioned topic in the same exact field as pseudoscience and alternative medicine, including for example the book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. I'd also suggest you ask folks at WP:WikiProject Medicine to weigh in, as they're probably quite experienced in dealing with those topics. — Cirt (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You can quote my above comments elsewhere, if you like. I hope that's helpful to you and to the community. — Cirt (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Catflap08 and Hijiri88 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 in 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, Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)