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)[reply]

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) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) • Opt-out instructions[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

User:Neuraxis, wasn't that a primary source you were trying to restore without consensus into the chiropractic page? QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read your post at the arbcom and you've made a minor, but significant error: from the paper: First, although the response rate was good at 68%, it remains unclear what practice perspectives and behaviours are associated with non-participants. Also, although the sample was randomly selected and stratified according to the number of licensed practitioners in each province, the sample represented only approximately 12 percent of practitioners from each province. As always, there is the possibility that despite the randomization scheme, a unique sample was selected, and generalizability is a possible concern. Both concerns seem unlikely, however, given the consistency of the number of dissidents calculated in other investigations of chiropractic [3,22,36].. The authors did not have concerns re: the generalizability, because similar surveys found the same responses in the US, South Africa, etc. So, no, it is not specific to Canada. Secondly, the article is rather clear in it's conclusions. Despite continued concerns by mainstream medicine [25], a minority of the chiropractic profession has retained a perspective unorthodox to current orthodox scientific views.. Your conclusions aren't in agreement with the paper itself. We really aren't allowed to interpret the source per se, just to present the facts. Labelling the whole profession as pseudoscientific is not only factually incorrect, but bizarre. Feel free to post my comment (or paraphrase) at Arbcom. Neuraxis (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, your first comment seems to me to be itself specifically interpreting the text, as it explicitly says generalization was a "possible concern, although it seems unlikely." The operative word there seems to me to be "seems", as you yourself seem to be interpreting the statements of the authors, rather than just presenting the facts. You seem to me to be doing exactly what you criticized me for. Regarding your second point, once again you seem to be drawing conclusions on the text, rather than taking the text itself, because the word "perspective" is itself at best ambiguous. Please read your own proof texts again, because, honestly, it seems to me that you are doing more interpretation than I am. John Carter (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading and reviewing research is part of my real-life job. The qualifying terms 'seems' is what all good researchers do. That being said, it does not negate the generalizability. You asserted that it's 'only' from Canada and the authors specifically cited other studies that this was not an outlier, but a common finding'. That was the purpose of my clarification. Regarding the word perspective, it must be used in the the context of the paper. Also, the word isn't ambiguous, it's definition is precise: a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.. So, it's a synonym for POV. What am I noticing at ArbCom is the majority of comments seem to be from users who have no expertise in research or methods and thus appraising the literature. If ArbCom commentary does not require one to bring sources and facts and relies on opinions on the topic then the process is flawed. Even in this case, where the statement in the conclusions are so clear, the 'personal interpretation' of the editors are completely irrelevant. If I am factually wrong about the process, then please tell me how I am misinformed. I do not want to waste your time or mine. If my tone is curt, I apologize in advance. What I am noticing that true skepticism will revise opinions based on new facts and data. Despite the multitude evidence of new facts that suggest that the majority of practice internationally is within scientific norms, there seems to be cynicism on the topic. I really don't know what evidence you or anyone would require. I am all ears (eyes!). . Be well. Neuraxis (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have taken the liberty of repairing a link in one of your comments here. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]