User talk:John Carter

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Speedy deletion nomination of Al Aysat

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Al Aysat requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Epeefleche (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 22, 2014)

Roger Ebert, well known for his contributions to film criticism. Hello, John Carter. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Film criticism Previous selections: French Revolutionary Wars • Forests of Australia Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC) •

Request for clarification, because I'm stupid

Yes, I know that you already clarified your initial comment closing the thread currently at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis, but there is an ongoing thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Baseball Bugs disruptive behaviour on the Reference Desks, and Wnt has asked for clarification at that current discussion regarding what the outcome of the previous discussion was.

No good deed ever goes unpunished around here, like, oh, closing an ANI discussion, although given the time delay involved in this one we evidently have a serious backlog of good deeds to initiate reprisals for. ;) John Carter (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The (hopefully) short version:

I closed a discussion, was lauded and attacked for the close (depends on one's "side" and perspective). It went to AN (or AN/I - I don't remember) Tried to respond to the various inquiries and attacks. Said at one point that if others didn't like the close, I welcomed any someone uninvolved to close it. No one did. So Bishonen emailed who knows how many people, and someone (who said they did so after drinking - you can't make this stuff up) created their own close of a sort.

At this point, I consider that person responsible for their decision.

In my estimation jc, on Wikipedia at least you seem like a great guy (with great initials : ) - I don't know if you want to go wading into this nonsense. But then, I'm finding myself less and less inclined to wade through POV pushing and other nonsense on Wikipedia in order to earnestly help out. There are days when I feel like I need to take something like an acid-bath shower after merely reading AN...

Anyway, I hope this helps. - jc37 20:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Intelligent design start

re your wondering "I don't know exactly which sources would be free of such potential bias", and suggested sources ... responding here since what I've to say isn't on the threads topic... I've got two thoughts on bias

1. We don't need to -- just use the cites. I think defining ID should not be our creatively editing, nor taking from a outside source, but rather should present just cite to fact of what the origination/definition was/is without worrying over if they are right, wrong or motives -- otherwise we've not presented that position in way that can avoid adding color, and have no basis cite that seems defensible..

2. I think the article is unrecoverably biased, but meh -- since it's fairly obvious that it is so mitigates the issue. It is also a bit better yet if a statement is cited -- if the source is clearly one side or the other then makes things clearer to the reader. . Markbassett (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, a few responses.

1) We don't need to do anything around here actually, but we are, as per policies and guidelines, supposed to present material we do present in as NPOV a way possible, and that takes into account matters of possible systemic bias.

2) Regarding your latter point, there have been a lot of recent discussions around here, including one about what seems to be a fairly obvious case of homosexual relationship whose exact nature has not been categorically stated, and also other cases dealing with whether people who might see themselves as "forced conversions" of some sort or other, where it has become clear that definition of a topic, and thus an article, is extremely important.

In general, the best way to proceed in questions where there is an obvious possibility of bias in potential sources is to find whatever sources are most likely to be neutral, and/or described as being neutral by other outsiders, and using what information they supply. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 23, 2014)

The Amazon Basin, pictured in yellow, holds the largest rainforest in the world. Hello, John Carter. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Amazon Basin Previous selections: Film criticism • French Revolutionary Wars Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC) •

Semi retired?

I am not quite sure that what you mean.. Though I have seen you active on a number of pages. How are you doing? OccultZone (Talk) 16:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone:: In terms of health, as good as can be expected. Basically, the semi-retired means I am in general only really active here when I am coming here for other purposes than most. Right now, I am still going through a list of articles I gathered together from one encyclopedia and finding if we have analogous ones here already, and if we do, their titles. That list is taking a while though. Otherwise, I am at least hoping to spend more time on wikisource, where I have something along the lines of 200 finished pages ready to put there, and some of the other WF sites. When I finish the article list comparison though I expect to be more or less comparatively inactive until I finish the next listing of articles from a reference book, whenever that is. But lists like that, and wikisource, are more or less my top priority now, and activity here basically relates directly to time spent on developing lists like some I've already put here. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I had seen your edit on one of the pages that I have watchlisted, so I thought you probably responded me on your talk page. It is surprising once again that I received no ping from you. It is great thing that you are doing. Honestly, I checked if you are active or not because I wanted some opinion on this page, Ynsa. Have good time there. OccultZone (Talk) 18:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: The "ping" didn't work? I thought I did that right above. I have downloaded the article and have a copy now. I can see where some of the problems might be. There isn't much available to me off the few databanks I have easy access to (I just checked). What kind of help were you specifically thinking of? John Carter (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You did it correctly, but there is some error with that template that it wouldn't work sometimes. Happened a few times before too. I think that there's something interesting about this article, especially after so many tags. Till now, I was unaware of 'too technical' as well, but that one was interesting. Do you check email? I wanted to write one. OccultZone (Talk) 19:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Feel free to send one. I figure to be online only a few hours today, and my three day, 12-hour-a-day work week starts tomorrow, so it might be a day or two till I can respond in any useful fashion. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Email sent. OccultZone (Talk) 15:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 24, 2014)

File:Elmo-cockpit xltn.jpg The Tickle Me Elmo toy was based on the Sesame Street character Elmo Hello, John Carter. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Tickle Me Elmo Previous selections: Amazon Basin • Film criticism Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC) •

Clarification

Hi John,

I read your post at the arbcom and I think we're crossing signals a bit. You had asked for a reference, a reliable source that states whether or not chiropractic was scientific, pseudoscientific, etc. Please read this artlce (204) and see if that addresses your concern. [1] Thank you in advance, Neuraxis (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)