Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:26, 13 October 2007

User talk:Martinphi/Template

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)

Note from Wikidudeman

Martin, Regardless of the validity of ScienceApologist's right to remove that template, You totally threw AGF out of the window by calling him a "vandal" in the edit summaries(link 1 link 2). ScienceApologist has been contributing to this project for a long time and calling him a "vandal" is a CLEAR violation of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. You were totally unjustified in doing that. An apology is in order. Wikidudeman 15:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right. I don't assume ScienceApologist has good faith, per WP:SPADE. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 17:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an essay. Not a policy or guideline. AGF is an official behavioral guideline. Wikidudeman 17:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me be even more perfectly plain: I do not believe ScienceApologist has good faith, and I do not assume it in his case. The reason is that I'm not that stupid. In this, I'm basically quoting from a previous ArbCom, and if you think this statement will get me in trouble, then go ahead and try and use it. Of course, some of his edits are in good faith, and some are good edits. But considering past and current behavior, that is not my current assumption. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 18:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying that you don't believe ScienceApologist has good faith? Please explain. Also explain what you mean by saying that you're "quoting from a previous ArbCom. Wikidudeman 18:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That was 1 year ago and the findings were that ScienceApologist was not civil, not that he had no good faith. Not only does this totally not apply to anything occurring here and now, it doesn't even support you not assuming good faith with him. Or are you claiming that since SA was not civil and did not assume good faith 1 year ago, that you don't need to AGF with him? Please clarify. Wikidudeman 19:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm stopping this conversation, as it isn't going anywhere. SA has not, it seems, changed in the last year. Failure to extend good faith, uncivil behavior, and edit warring are mistakes. Continuing to use the same editing style after an ArbCom warns you is bad faith. I believe that SA has continued to use the same old tricks. So I don't think he is, in some of his edits, a good faith editor. I'll not reply to any more of this here. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF means that you need to assume good faith even if you don't believe something done is done in good faith. That's the whole point. You can't simply stop assuming good faith whenever you want to or else problems arise. Moreover, Since you are fond of Essays, Please see WP:KETTLE. You accuse SA of not assuming good faith and being uncivil yet you state as clear as day that you refuse to AGF with him and you also call him a "vandal". Wikidudeman 20:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

He vandalized my talk page. He tried to pass it off as removing a personal attack, but that doesn't wash. Personal attacks have to be personal. Even if that were not so, attacking yourself at the same time -since I'm a member of the project RationalSkepticism- can be just good fun. At the most, you could say that I should not have accused him of vandalism the first time he did it. Or, you could say he didn't know even the second and third time. Or something. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: nearly every edit SA makes in the paranormal makes me think he is still doing just what the ArbCom said he was doing a year ago. To the extent that his edits don't make me think that, I do assume SA has good faith. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism has a distinct definition(WP:VAND here on Misplaced Pages. I assume that SA's edits were in good faith because I assume good faith. Even if his edits were in bad faith, you still need to "assume" good faith as that prevents disputes. Calling another editor a 'vandal' does nothing but inflame and add fuel to disputes. Worst case scenario is he made a mistake in assuming that the template was an attack. In which case calling him a vandal was still totally uncalled for. Wikidudeman 21:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah. Best case scenario he actually believed it was a personal attack. Kind of hard to believe, but then you assume good faith. That would take care of the first revert. Second time, it meets:

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages." In this case, my talk page.

However, I wasn't editing or making edit summaries from a wikilawyer perspective. It arguable whether or not it meets the WP definition of the word vandalism, but certainly after the first revert, it meets all common definitions.

This means, you may have something to your argument, but it requires a real stretch of credulity, and it requires wikilawyering. I'm seeing the whole picture of SA's recent edits. If you think I should at the time have been assuming good faith, then that is your opinion. My belief is that assuming good faith by that time, given past behavior over many months and the findings of the ArbCom, stretches credulity to such an extent that not even AGF can encompass it. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't see his edit in any way deliberately compromising the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Not in any way do I see it that way. Secondly, Forget the definition of "vandalism". Even if his edits were by definition vandalism per wikipedia (and I don't believe for a second that they were) that still doesn't make it right calling him a vandal. He's an established user who has contributed massively to this project and using such terms as "vandal" to refer to him is doing nothing more than fueling disputes. Wikidudeman 01:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Being an established user doesn't mean he can't be a vandal. I have always called it like I see it, and if someone comes and takes out a perfectly fine joke off my talk page and edit wars with me over it, then I think that's vandalism. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that he wasn't a vandal because he was an established editor. What I said was that by the definition of vandal, he isn't a vandal. Moreover, I also said that using such terms for such users does nothing but inflame the situation making it worse. It's not a good choice to do such things if you aim to avoid disputes. This is why I ask that you apologize to him. Not only for being mistaken about him being a vandal and accusing him of such, but also for inflaming the situation by doing so. Wikidudeman 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The situation could not possibly have been inflamed more. I'm divided as to whether it was vandalism: I don't know for sure whether it was, but I said it was in good faith. I do believe that whether or not it could be successfully argued to be vandalism under a technical definition, it was such a destructive and unjustified attack on my talk page that if I am wrong in calling him a vandal, I can be forgiven for the mistake. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I ask that you apologize, to help ease potential disputes. Wikidudeman 13:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree to apologize to him for any assumption of bad faith or technical incorrectness in calling him a vandal, if you can get him to agree to apologize for assuming my bad faith in my parody, edit warring with me on my talk page, and saying I had made a personal attack (even saying I'm not a member of the RationalSkepticism project). It wasn't a personal attack, because it wasn't personal, and the admin even told him to drop it.

This is a childish game, but that's the game: if I apologize to him unconditionally, it will not be taken in a nuanced way, but as an admission of sole guilt. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why must the apology be circumstantial? The first way to initiate peace is to be the first one to initiate an apology. You can qualify your apology with a note of it not being an admission of sole guilt, but I would suggest an apology regardless of if he apologizes or not. He might even do so if he sees that you have. Wikidudeman 21:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Call me childish. I'm asking you to lead this, be a moderator. See if he's willing. Or don't you think he did anything wrong? ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who is subject to an arbitration, it would be in your best interest to show the initiative opposed to demanding that he apologize before you do. If you apologize then maybe he will also, but then again maybe he won't. I'm asking you to do so because I feel that it will help you and make it seem like you're more willing to take the initiative to resolve disputes. Wikidudeman 22:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: ScienceApologist and my talk page

Martin,

Demanding an apology from anyone is senseless, since a forced apology is meaningless. By the same token, offering an insincere apology is just as senseless. So I don't think you should apologize unless you mean it. Λυδαcιτγ 00:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think he should be remorseful for not assuming good faith and calling another editor a vandal who clearly isn't a vandal. Thus, If he is indeed remorseful, he should apologize. If he isn't remorseful then there's not much that I can suggest for him. Wikidudeman 00:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Regardless of whether SA's actions could qualify as vandalism, he was doing them for a reason, and I think you should have used a different edit summary - with an explanation - in reverting. Λυδαcιτγ 05:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology, but I believe there are still a lot of outstanding issues that people have with your editing. Your tacit labeling of many different people as being in a cadre of pseudoskpetics does not lead me to believe that you are after harmonious editing at all, and I am particularly concerned that you are quick to revert on the basis of what you perceive to be bias against your point-of-view while not recognizing the fundamental reliability and verifiability issues that are problematic in the ideas which you support. I hope you take the upcoming arbitration seriously. You seem to have viewed the previous arbitration (wrongly, in my opinion) as a partial vindication for your advocacy here at Misplaced Pages. I think that this view is not only not evident from the arbitration outcomes themselves, but I think that many of your actions since then have been contrary to the spirit of the arbitration decisions made in both the paranormal and pseudoscience decisions. I also think that your essay on how to write paranormal articles is basically an attack on anybody who tries to keep Misplaced Pages neutral and free from pseudoscience POV-creep. You have taken a very formulaic approach to article writing which amounts to you believing that a simple caveat in the intro and a criticism section at the end of an article is all that should be allowed for paranormal articles. This has created some very problematic text in the few months that I've been gone from Misplaced Pages: to the point that I believe it compromises the very integrity of the encyclopedia. As such, a clarification from the arbitration committee would probably be useful, especially as it pertains to user conduct. ScienceApologist 22:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinions about truth or falsehood do not matter- only what the sources say. That is a fundamental difference between you and me in our editing styles.

I think skepticism should be fully explicated. I once tried to start an article which would have been all about criticism of parapsychology. I wanted a whole article to discuss fraud in parapsychology. I want all the criticism to be there. The only thing I do not want is to make up the reader's mind by choice of words, juxtaposition/immediate refutation, or other tricks. I want the reader to be presented with all the facts, stated neutrally.

It is not my duty to judge the "fundamental reliability and verifiability issues" of ideas. It is my duty to report the sources. I think it is against the needs and rules of Misplaced Pages to edit otherwise.

I edit the same way in articles where I believe the subject to be undeniably fraud- for instance, Sylvia Browne, or Psychic surgery, etc. That's because neutral presentations of sources and definitions must be created and preserved regardless of the worth of the subject matter. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Martin, you are so well practiced in double-speak that I find this response to be so outrageously evasive and duplicitous as to be almost not worth reply. However, I want to point out that you have basically not come to terms with the fact that your stated commitment to "sources" is in actuality a snub in the face of reliability and verifiability. Not all sources are created equal. That you insist that NPOV leads you down that road is how you have managed to weasel your way into being a pervasive POV-pusher. ScienceApologist 22:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)