Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:55, 1 February 2007

Archives

Archive 1

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your many excellent contributions to paranormal articles. - Solar 13:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Probe scanner.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Probe scanner.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks orphanbot! It's fixed! Dreadlocke ☥ 05:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Medium

I only looked briefly at your mediumship article but that is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind. I think a lot of it could simply be entered stright into Medium, because when one considers the amount of stuff that could be included the current Medium article is woeful. This, I think, is due to the number of "skeptics" on Wiki who have looked brifly at the Skepdic website, don't want anything included in a a way that doesn't tally with Carroll's view, but don't know anything about the subject so can't write anything. The result being the article gets whittled down to nothing. This is exactly what has been happened on the EVP article. Davkal 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Draining, tell me about it. I'm currently involved in a two-day debate about the peer-review journal of the SPR not being a reliable enough source for even the existence of an experiment reported in its pages, while all the time unbounded skeptical speculations sit in the article without even so much as a source, reputable or otherwise. Anyway, I think it's a pity that all the good work on mediumship has to be hidden away as it were for fear of censorship.

One of the things I was thinking of doing, was in trying to get the paranormal wiki project to set out a set of much more specific guidlines re the sources for paranormal articles. I am fed up with, for example, finding things in peer-review journals only to have those sources rubbished because some skeptic who has had a quick look at Skepdic decides it's not in line with mainstream scientific thinking, or their own take on things, or something. For example, Askolnick wouldn't even allow Brian Josephson to be called a parpsychologist, even though I had a quote saying exactly that from Physics World, because he (askolnick) decided Josephson's research record was not comprehensive enough for that. I think it would be good to get much mor specific guidlines because at the moment it just seems like arguing round and round in circles at every step of every article with people whose prejudice against anything even paranormal sounding leads them to more and more bizarre arguments. I don't know.Davkal 03:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-abducting barnstar

Thanks!

Thanks much, Dreadlocke, for checking in on the TM article and for pointing me to the Guideline on Criticism.TimidGuy 22:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I need to archive the TM Talk page. We sure have filled it with verbiage. I do appreciate your appearing on the Talk page and noting Sethie's personal attack.TimidGuy 02:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the endorsement on my Talk page in response to Sethie's challenges on COI. I really appreciate your feedback. I may be posting an RfC today related to my dispute with Sethie on his disallowing a rebuttal in the cult section.TimidGuy 12:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: EVP

Yeah, strong feelings are the spice of life.. but it can sometimes get in the way of common sense. ---J.S 05:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You're a hero

Thanks, Dreadlocke. Lately I'd been thinking I needed to find a forum to answer questions about verifiability, etc. Sethie seems to be making up rules sometimes. I really appreciate your feedback on the topic and for pointing me to those forums.TimidGuy 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Really appreciate your help, Dreadlocke. I've now added an official warning tag to Sethie's Talk page.TimidGuy 12:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the e-mail. And for the action you took. Great to have your perspective. And note the conciliatory message on my Talk page.TimidGuy 20:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Natasha Demkina

I really hate it when there are editors who make it their personal mission to push an agenda on certain entries, it ruins the entire community approach, doesn't it. I'll have a look at your draft, but I haven't read up on the topic much so I think that the most that I can do is to go over the wording.

On a personal level, it always rings alarm bells with me when anybody calls any paranormal ability a gift. I guess that it is a cultural thing. There are a lot of implications to that word. The biggest being that a gift must be given, and in order for something to be given there must be a giver.

perfectblue 07:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So that you know in advance, I'm a total skeptic about this case (sorry, but I can't rationalize it with my beliefs on scientific, magical or religious healing), but I will accept that any verifiable claim that was made about her and her abilities can and should be documented (I firmly believe that it is important to document what people believe or what they say happens, even if it is/appears to be wrong).

perfectblue 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on my own draft in my sandbox, its going to use most of the same information that you have, but broken down slightly differently, and without a few details that I think are irrelevant (I'm treating it as an entry on her abilities and claims rather than an entry on her). It should be shorter and a little more acceptable to skeptics, but without having alleged and so-called every other sentence, and having the core of the paranormal belief in it. I'll do some more work on it and you can see what you think.

perfectblue 08:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Totally-Disputed Template

Hi - thanks for telling me that - I've restored the !votes and changed the result to keep. I just wonder why the person who removed the anon !vote didn't restore the others (even though we're not supposed to remove anon messages). Anyway, thanks :) Martinp23 10:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV wording

Hi, in this edit, you removed the word 'scathing' from a critism, describing it as "POV wording". I have no comment on the The Afterlife Experiments, so I'm not entering the debate over there, but simply to voice my opinion that the word 'scathing' is itself not inherently point-of-view. One party in a contested topic could, for example, write a paper containing the words "X's level of scholarship is extremely poor... his paper on Y contains 24 factual errors and 10 logical fallacies... the only good parts of the paper were plagarised from Z...", etc. It would be perfectly correct to describe such severe critism as 'scathing'—in fact, dictionary.com gives the primary definition of 'scathe' as "to attack with severe critism"—though whether or not such criticism should be represented as a notable view is of course another matter. Regards, — BillC 18:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Natasha Demkina

Hey, no peeking

perfectblue 07:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please use substition on warning and welcome messages

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

This includes all user warning messages. Frankly, however, I think that Gwernol does need this warning. That is an admin-level account. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Demkina

I'm having a few problems with the criticism section of the Demkina draft which is drifting against her. Do you have any other sources of criticism of the New York experiments that I could use to even it out?

At the moment all I have is the criticism of the use of a high Bayes factor, Demkina's criticism about how she was treated, and some accusations that she cheated by turning up early and observing the patients and that she used a cell phone during the experiments (which I haven't included right now).

Could you also have a quick look and see if I am using Bayesian inference correctly, as I'm not certain that I know what it is.

perfectblue 08:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wizard (fantasy)

The latest act appears to be carefully detaching the history of "Wizard (fantasy)" from the actual article/redirect. As this looks to me to violate the spirit of the discusion about deletion, it would appear that we should invoke higher powers. (Not to mention leaving the queasy question of why it is so important that you not be able to get to "Wizard (fantasy)" history from "Magicians in fantasy".) Goldfritha 18:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I done it. About this detaching of history. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wizard (fantasy). Goldfritha 04:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I saw the above discussion, I just decided to let it be worked out there. --InShaneee 21:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a new one up elsewhere: WP:AN#Request_for_advice. --InShaneee 21:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You can make your request there, yes, and I will look at it, but I think review by a wider scope is needed here. If you really think it's that different from j's topic, go ahead and start a new thread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by InShaneee (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

If only.

I came across the essay WP:TIGERS today and I wish I had done so a long, long time ago. I'm sure you can see why. :) Cheers, - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Demkina and the Center

Well, the opening paragraph is her biography, who she is, why she was famous, and what she is doing now. If it doesn't belong there somebody will need to add a "Where is she now" section on at the end which would be a lot more messy.

It's valid information, it means that even though she was not able to prove her abilities to science, she has entered a known institute to continue research of some nature. Taking it out would make it look like she just gave up and went home.

perfectblue 08:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette and Verifiability

Hello Dreadlocke. I do not believe my edits were a breech of Wikiquette. Rather, they were in accordance with WP:V. Have a good day. Nick Graves 17:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Natasha Demkina

I was hoping to add the draft it more or less in full, but I'm more than open to making modifications.

perfectblue 07:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Million $ challenge

Hi,

I didn't bother to read this carefully, but basically I think it is now only going to be for people who have scientists behind them or have had a lot of press. So, one might want to mention the prize, but it is now formally a ploy to embarrass high profile psychics, and no longer something that can be thrown in the face of just any psychic. So maybe I should just have revised that paragraph, but I thought I'd just take it out and see what happened.

Here's a quote: "The foundation will launch this public-shaming initiative with a list of four targets, including self-proclaimed medium John Edward, and daytime talk show darling Sylvia Browne, who claims she can tell the future and see angels." What do you think? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Award

Thanks very much Dreadlocke, That's a great start to the new year, it's always nice to get an award. Thanks again. - Solar 10:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I accept your offer of help!

Thanks so much, Dreadlock. Yes, it would be really great to have your help. My advocate seemed to give me some good advice early on, but mostly he's been somewhat uncommunicative. Plus, it's been kind of an odd situation to have Sethie's advocate appear in my discussion with my advocate. And my advocate acknowledged he has no experience with Medcom. It will be great to have advice from an experienced editor like yourself.

Where should we communicate?TimidGuy 16:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation for John Edward

This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

— Elembis 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Guideline on Paranormal

Hello Dreadlocke, I thought you might be interested in an attempt I have made to come to some kind of consensus on James Randi's inclusion in every paranormal article. I think this would be a first step towards a wider guideline on paranormal issues. Let me know what you think. - Solar 19:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wizard (fantasy)

I put in the request for a move. Goldfritha 03:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/John Edward. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Thanks for the notice, I will be away for the weekend and probably will not be able to participate until next Tuesday, Jan 23. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries

The mediation hasn't actually begun yet, that was just an indication that the MedCom will take on the case. I'll leave a note on the page saying that you'd rather not begin just yet, and that way no Mediator will take the case yet. How's that sound? ^demon 02:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to be confused with ESPN

Pretty funny (-:>

Check out here "More recent studies indicate that the vast majority of scientists are skeptical of ESP, but belief in ESP persists among the general public."

Add your pet peeve here and help me edit. Maybe it can turn into something which can be shown to scientistists and maybe save some time arguing?

......Well, the page is called Extra-sensory perception, not ESP. So, that's that.

He blanked his talk page. Is that considered vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 20:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Psychic?

You mean the Psychic article? I've made some major changes really fast, we'll see what sticks. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Say, I really like your new intro to Psychic! I think it addresses both sides (although the pseudo-skepitcs won't be happy until it says "All psychics are frauds and there's no such thing..." Anyway, I hope your version sticks! I'll work to make it so. I'm tired of arguing over a single word, you actually did what I've been suggesting and added detailed content! That's the way to go, but some of these editors just want to be lazy and throw in a biased, loaded WP:WTA. Good job! Dreadlocke ☥ 02:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (: ! Did you take a look at the essay on my user page? I really have no idea whether it is any good or whether it would be usefull, but if we could make it good, it might save a lot of time and argument and having to go over the same points with pseudo-skepitcs again and again. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Eloquence

Honestly, I'd consider it 3 reverts. Generally, the 3RR covers exact reverts, but it also covers edits which are substantially reverts, i.e. where one or two words are changed over and over again. And in this case, Eloquence was changing the same words over and over again. His edits were 98% the same. --Woohookitty 05:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)