Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:30, 7 October 2007

Template:Martinphi talkpage

Thanks

For the Socratic barnstar! Just calling things as I see them ; ) --Nealparr 05:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And calling them well (: ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Damned well! Dreadstar † 05:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar RfA

Martin,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 55 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to vote in my nomination. I'm a new admin, so if you have any suggestions feel free to let me know. I would like to give a special shout out to Fang Aili, Phaedriel, and Anonymous Dissident, for their co-nominations. Thank you all!

Thanks for your support, I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by borrowing someone else's thank you card design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! And what can I say besides a simple thank you...we've been through a lot, and you are one stubborn PsiBeeyatch..! Dreadstar † 05:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Improve EVP

Format the references on the EVP article please. You can use this tool to do it. Thanks. Wikidudeman 17:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you plan on doing it or should I just do it? Wikidudeman 00:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I already started it here, but if you want to do some that would be great. You can edit the sandbox. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Let me show you an example of what I mean. Here's the process:

1. Get this tool.

2. Depending on the type of link, pick which one it is.

3. I'm going to use ref #64 as an example. this link

4.Put the info in the tool including authors name, publication, date, etc.

5 This is the result. diff (ignoring the fixes).

Any questions? Wikidudeman 14:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

EVP article

Hi, got your comment on my talk page. I'll look the article over. I see the two of you, at least, have been working on the article. Just from a cursory view: The TOC, needs reformating for presentation. Like to see you make it to good article status. Keep up the good work. --Northmeister 00:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Made some changes to the article for readability. However, your free to change anything back if you like. The article needs some improvement in my opinion. Mainly in format and layout for the above concern; and some of the wording and paragraghs. The history section is good. The 'popular' section, in my opinion needs work however. I'm not a fan of to many subsections of subsections. Maybe something better can be done here. I'll work with you two to address my concerns and to help you out with this process. Good work thus far. --Northmeister 01:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Psychic article

The lead in the psychic article needs to throughly summarize the article itself. The article has an entire paragraph explaining the James Randi challenge and thus at least two sentences in the lead need to be dedicated to it. 2 sentences per paragraph seems about right per WP:LEAD. The amount dedicated to the skepticism in the article is I agree not proportionate to that in the lead. This doesn't mean we need to remove valuable info from the lead, only expand the info in the lead discussing psychics. I can easily fix this. Wikidudeman 15:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD, the lead should be in proportion to the article. Skepticism is only a small section of the article, and should be represented in the lead in the same proportion. If you like I can go do a word count, and we can work from that. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What OS and Browser do you use?

What OS and Browser do you use? Wikidudeman 20:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Win XP Home, Mozilla 1.7.13 ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Try this:User:Wikidudeman/Hodgepodge. Wikidudeman 20:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

EVP

I included computers as a tool not as a media (see my original text) The source and page I cite is about computers used for analysis or comparison of EVP records as well as real time analysis. Jenny☤ 20:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin you've done a fine job with the article and with addressing concerns as far as I can see. Let's see what we can do with LuckyLouie's observations and put whatever occured in the past at rest for now. Project Paranormal might be a good place to solicit help regarding the article from editors who have worked on paranormal related topics before. --Northmeister 03:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What's this?

What is this? Why are you collecting links on comments of mine? Wikidudeman 14:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You won't answer me? Also, Why only collecting links to instances of where you disagree with me? Wikidudeman 23:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I answered you last time, I thought. I said I'd vote for you if you remained NPOV for a year. It was stupid to get myself into this, but if I don't know where things stand at that time, how will I know what to do? ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA isn't a vote. And from my prespective it seems like you're just collecting random links of instances you disagree with me in the event that I do have an RFA again just so you can oppose me. Wikidudeman 12:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomena

Please read WP:CAT and the banner at the top of Category:Spirituality. Thank you. IPSOS (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't look far enough down the tree. Ghosts is a subcat of Deities, spirits, and mythic beings which is a subcat of spirituality. IPSOS (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought paranormal was a subcat of occult, but I see it is the reverse. I've added Category:Spiritualism, which has to do with external spirits. Spirituality has to do with one's own spirit. IPSOS (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm trying to diffuse Category:Spirituality. I've had to create several new categories in the process... IPSOS (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Errr....

On the Electronic voice phenomena you reverted edits by User:ScienceApologist and stated that "Rv to consensus version. Don't edit till consensus happens." in the revert summary. However then the very next day you made edits to the article yourself. I think that it would be important to follow your own advice. If you're going to tell other editors not to edit an article until mediations continue then you need not edit the article yourself until mediations continue. Does this make any sense? Wikidudeman 00:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sort of, sort of not. We aren't in mediation. My edits were technical edits, and did not change the POV angle of the article, so far as I can tell. SA's did. Perhaps I should have been more clear in my edit summary, but I was talking directly to SA, who usually only cares about issues of viewpoint. So most any edit he wants to do is going to require consensus. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The informal mediation isn't just attempting to resolve POV issues but all other issues. Making any changes to the article after warning another user not to isn't helping, even if you don't deem your edits to be POV but the other editors as being POV. Even if your edits were simply edits that would never be opposed for content, the edits themselves regardless of content could spark an edit war because your note to User:ScienceApologist said nothing of "POV" edits but simply said "don't edit till consensus happens". Wikidudeman 00:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Faith Healing - New Thought

Take a look at the New Thought page, Religious Science,Divine Science or Unity page.

Prods

Yup, any editor can remove a prod warning, "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason." The only possible route to go would be to put it up for WP:AFD, but with the article in the NY Times and the various other references, I doubt it would fail Misplaced Pages:Notability. Dreadstar † 05:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please respond here

Template talk:Martinphi talkpage. Thank you. ScienceApologist 21:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you asked: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi. ScienceApologist 21:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)