| Revision as of 08:21, 7 September 2008 editMartinphi (talk | contribs)12,452 edits →Don't refactor someone else's talk page comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:01, 7 September 2008 edit undoTznkai (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,985 edits →Don't refactor someone else's talk page commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| ::Yes. Now, what about the attack? Your emphasis on this issue is simply inappropriate when you do not deal with the main issue. Shoemaker should be warned that I will be asking ArbCom for a amendment to his case if he ever does something like this again. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 08:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC) | ::Yes. Now, what about the attack? Your emphasis on this issue is simply inappropriate when you do not deal with the main issue. Shoemaker should be warned that I will be asking ArbCom for a amendment to his case if he ever does something like this again. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 08:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::Apparently you aren't getting it Martinphi, so I will be clear here: | |||
| :::*Do not, under any circumstances remove any one else's comments (except on your own talk page) unless they are causing serious harm to your real life, non-Misplaced Pages identity. Do not interpret this with any latitude. | |||
| :::*Furthermore, you are asked to stop referring to or communicating to Shoemaker for at least 24 hours from this message. | |||
| :::*Furthermore, you are asked to pledge that you will wait for an acknowledgment of consensus before editing any policy page for the next week. | |||
| :::*You will acknowledge this message, and do so on the appropriate ] topic | |||
| :::If you do not do these things, I will remove my objection to you getting brand new topic bans, and instead endorse them.--] (]) 16:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:01, 7 September 2008
Sylvia Browne
Thanks for catching that extra vandalism that I missed. Verbal chat 08:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
who's the psych source?
I understand they've all said similar things, right? Sheldrake, Radin, Jahn? If these three I think the ref would have enough weight, then. It's a highly central point to the whole debate so I was surprised it wasn't already in the lede. --Asdfg12345 08:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
actually, there must have been enough literature for a section exploring the stubborn and dogmatic response of mainstream science to these experiments. There is a critique/response of Sheldrake's work in a book I read the intro of on Amazon recently, and this proves that this discussion has currency. It's also a key factor that parapsychologists raise/use to explain why these things aren't yet accepted as true. I think it would be remiss of editors to omit all this highly relevant discussion.--Asdfg12345 08:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
CfD for Category:Remote viewers and Category:Telepaths
Category:Remote viewers and Category:Telepaths, which you created, have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't refactor someone else's talk page comment
See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Martinphi at WP:NPOV. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Removal of personal attacks is common practice, and allows the attacker to leave it be and no harm done. Removal of well-poisoning, I would think, is an especially good idea. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a good idea to refactor someone elses comments at the best of times; it is especially inappropriate when those comments are directed at you (except on your own user talk page). John Vandenberg 07:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Now, what about the attack? Your emphasis on this issue is simply inappropriate when you do not deal with the main issue. Shoemaker should be warned that I will be asking ArbCom for a amendment to his case if he ever does something like this again. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently you aren't getting it Martinphi, so I will be clear here:
- Do not, under any circumstances remove any one else's comments (except on your own talk page) unless they are causing serious harm to your real life, non-Misplaced Pages identity. Do not interpret this with any latitude.
- Furthermore, you are asked to stop referring to or communicating to Shoemaker for at least 24 hours from this message.
- Furthermore, you are asked to pledge that you will wait for an acknowledgment of consensus before editing any policy page for the next week.
- You will acknowledge this message, and do so on the appropriate WP:AE topic
- If you do not do these things, I will remove my objection to you getting brand new topic bans, and instead endorse them.--Tznkai (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently you aren't getting it Martinphi, so I will be clear here:
- Yes. Now, what about the attack? Your emphasis on this issue is simply inappropriate when you do not deal with the main issue. Shoemaker should be warned that I will be asking ArbCom for a amendment to his case if he ever does something like this again. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)