Misplaced Pages

User talk:Annalisa Ventola: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:41, 26 February 2007 editAnnalisa Ventola (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,048 edits →SO good to have you← Previous edit Revision as of 21:53, 26 February 2007 edit undoMartinphi (talk | contribs)12,452 edits →SO good to have youNext edit →
Line 14: Line 14:
Annalisa, I read your user page and it is SO good to have you here. There are so many more skeptics than neutrals on Misplaced Pages, and they are pseudoskeptics in the tradition of Randi, not Marcello Truzzi. We need your help so badly. It can be really hard around here, because the pseudoskeptics just ignore what you say. But please don't be put off by it too much. BTW, I looked at your blog and it is really really good. I don't know why I haven't found it before- must not rate on the search engines. I've done a lot of work with the parapsychology article, and Nealparr did a lot with the summary. Maybe you can check us for facts etc.? ''']''' <sub>(] Ψ ])</sub> 09:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Annalisa, I read your user page and it is SO good to have you here. There are so many more skeptics than neutrals on Misplaced Pages, and they are pseudoskeptics in the tradition of Randi, not Marcello Truzzi. We need your help so badly. It can be really hard around here, because the pseudoskeptics just ignore what you say. But please don't be put off by it too much. BTW, I looked at your blog and it is really really good. I don't know why I haven't found it before- must not rate on the search engines. I've done a lot of work with the parapsychology article, and Nealparr did a lot with the summary. Maybe you can check us for facts etc.? ''']''' <sub>(] Ψ ])</sub> 09:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for making me feel so welcome. I plan to spend a little bit of time on sidelines before I start making any major changes. I admire your and Nealparr's willingness debate the pseudoskeptics. I don't know if I could do it myself...going over the same tiring arguments that have been going on for well over a century...and with people who haven't mastered the terminology or have learned to write in paragraphs on top of that! The blog is only 6 months old, but does pop up in the search engines if you use 'parapsychology' along with any other words.--] 15:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC) :Thanks for making me feel so welcome. I plan to spend a little bit of time on sidelines before I start making any major changes. I admire your and Nealparr's willingness debate the pseudoskeptics. I don't know if I could do it myself...going over the same tiring arguments that have been going on for well over a century...and with people who haven't mastered the terminology or have learned to write in paragraphs on top of that! The blog is only 6 months old, but does pop up in the search engines if you use 'parapsychology' along with any other words.--] 15:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

::Well, it does get very tiresome to debate them. For this reason, my own involvement is going to get less, after the fight over the scientific status of parapsychology has been won or has gone through the Arbitration Committee, if they will take it. This argument over the scientific status has a lot of meaning: for one thing, skeptics would like to say that any journal of parapsychology is just a fringe source, and anything in a '''Mainstream''' source takes precedence over it. So you'd get citations to Shermer from Scientific American or something, or Hyman or Alcock citations which are opinion pieces and not peer-reviewed. They also claim that whatever they believe is "mainstream," and whatever is paranormal is "fringe," and covered under ], so that it must be made terribly clear that the subject is ''Not mainstream'''. It's very subtle, and very bound up in the rules of Misplaced Pages. You'll notice that Wikiduduman wanted to get the section out of the main article, and relegate it to just another part of the ] section, as it it is only what some fringe nut cases have claimed for parapsychology. Also, Misplaced Pages follows the ] in any field, and opposing views are less covered. That tells you how important it is. You might want to read my essay-in-progress ].

Some tips for Misplaced Pages: Answer people on ''their'' talk pages not yours, so they will get a notice that they have a message. You can also make a better signature, which will make it easy for people to leave you messages. Click the "My preferences" link at the top of the page; go to the "User profile" tab; where it says "Signature," put in something like this:

<nowiki>
] <sub>(] | ])</sub>
</nowiki>

Then check the box that says "Raw signature", and save it.

It will look like this:

] <sub>(] | ])</sub>

Also, on the talk pages, indent one more space by using one more : before your paragraph than the last person- or if it is indented 4 or 5 times, start fresh with no indent. ''']''' <sub>(] Ψ ])</sub> 21:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:53, 26 February 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Annalisa Ventola, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Someguy1221 03:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

SO good to have you

Annalisa, I read your user page and it is SO good to have you here. There are so many more skeptics than neutrals on Misplaced Pages, and they are pseudoskeptics in the tradition of Randi, not Marcello Truzzi. We need your help so badly. It can be really hard around here, because the pseudoskeptics just ignore what you say. But please don't be put off by it too much. BTW, I looked at your blog and it is really really good. I don't know why I haven't found it before- must not rate on the search engines. I've done a lot of work with the parapsychology article, and Nealparr did a lot with the summary. Maybe you can check us for facts etc.? Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 09:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making me feel so welcome. I plan to spend a little bit of time on sidelines before I start making any major changes. I admire your and Nealparr's willingness debate the pseudoskeptics. I don't know if I could do it myself...going over the same tiring arguments that have been going on for well over a century...and with people who haven't mastered the terminology or have learned to write in paragraphs on top of that! The blog is only 6 months old, but does pop up in the search engines if you use 'parapsychology' along with any other words.--Annalisa Ventola 15:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it does get very tiresome to debate them. For this reason, my own involvement is going to get less, after the fight over the scientific status of parapsychology has been won or has gone through the Arbitration Committee, if they will take it. This argument over the scientific status has a lot of meaning: for one thing, skeptics would like to say that any journal of parapsychology is just a fringe source, and anything in a Mainstream' source takes precedence over it. So you'd get citations to Shermer from Scientific American or something, or Hyman or Alcock citations which are opinion pieces and not peer-reviewed. They also claim that whatever they believe is "mainstream," and whatever is paranormal is "fringe," and covered under WP:FRINGE, so that it must be made terribly clear that the subject is Not mainstream. It's very subtle, and very bound up in the rules of Misplaced Pages. You'll notice that Wikiduduman wanted to get the section out of the main article, and relegate it to just another part of the Controversy in parapsychology section, as it it is only what some fringe nut cases have claimed for parapsychology. Also, Misplaced Pages follows the scientific consensus in any field, and opposing views are less covered. That tells you how important it is. You might want to read my essay-in-progress here.

Some tips for Misplaced Pages: Answer people on their talk pages not yours, so they will get a notice that they have a message. You can also make a better signature, which will make it easy for people to leave you messages. Click the "My preferences" link at the top of the page; go to the "User profile" tab; where it says "Signature," put in something like this:

] <sub>(] | ])</sub>

Then check the box that says "Raw signature", and save it.

It will look like this:

Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs)

Also, on the talk pages, indent one more space by using one more : before your paragraph than the last person- or if it is indented 4 or 5 times, start fresh with no indent. Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)