Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:28, 4 November 2008

User talk:Martinphi/Template

Orgone

Hey Mr M. Orangemarlin and TMtolouse are back to adding the POV tag to Orgone again, for no reason I can discern (in case you hadn't noticed). I've filed another ANI about it Misplaced Pages:ANI#Orgone.2C_again.... just thought you'd want to know. --Ludwigs2 04:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A. A. Allen

Check out my visit long ago. A.A. Allen talk page Kazuba (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Compromises

You do realize if you and I can compromise to several of these articles, most people won't complain. I appreciate what you just did! Thanks. OrangeMarlin 23:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Flaming campaign

Hi Martin, I spotted that you ammended the 'spiteful' heading on the WP:POV page. The user (et al.) is now throwing a tantrum and has engaging in a flaming campaign as part of their protest.This includes an allegation of me somehow being an anti-semite becasue I declared myself a policy nazi. Would you mind advising please, if you have time. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Binksternet reverted everything. But if you have a chance please can you take a look at this please and see what you think. My personal opinion is that the user is engaging, at the very least, in meat puppetry, more difficult to prove is the possibility that the same user is employing different accounts from differnent IP's, home, work, perhaps. An unresolved sock puppet case has been filed, if you would like to add a comment you can do it here. You are of course free to ignore all of this! Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Response from Valueyou In terms of flaming - I was unaware I was doing anything incorrect as I am a fairly recent editor here. The point is Semitransgenic continues to attempt to charge me with this false silliness. I am sure that Semitransgenic would like to see me kicked off of wiki as I dare oppose Semitransgenic's aggressive language and editing tactics. What a waste of time. Valueyou (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Martin for drawing other comments here. See VY's talk for comments by others, the user has been instructed to go to WP:DR. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

PLease ignore above, issues have been addressed for now. Best. S. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

For now! : ) Cheers. S. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder

This RfAr was opened and involves you - you seem to have missed Shoemaker's message about this, so I'm reminding you. Thanks. Garden. 14:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Psychokinesis revert

Greetings. I reverted your edit to the disputed tag on Psychokinesis. I understand why you made the edit you did, based on the talkpage, but I dont' think that is the intended use of the field. Please see my suggestion in the article talkpage and see if we can have a less garrish alternative to point out the article-issues. thanks! -Verdatum (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Blossom Goodchild

Seriously? You should know better than this. X MarX the Spot (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, just lost track reloading the history page. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. :) I think I'm gonna unwatch the page and let it go down the shitter. The vandals can have it. There are more important articles to focus on. Be well buddy. X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually there's no need. It's been G4 speedied. :) X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: It took me a moment to figure out what you were referring to as it was rather vague, but now I follow. I made a mess for moment, but I think I've got everything back to the way it should be. Since the admin that closed the AfD was agreeable to moving the article back into mainspace, the reposted content speedy deletion is borderline. I recommend filing another AfD if you think the article should be deleted in it's current form. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: I blocked an IP regarding that article? I don't remember blocking anybody specifically for vandalizing that article. It appears that there are lots of IPs interested in her for whatever reason. I suspect that the vandalism is just a lull. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Oh, okay. I blocked that IP back in 2007, which is why I didn't remember that. It was over a different article, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Not a problem. Everything is all good. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What is a Science?

If I were a professional scientist in physics and lasers (what ever) and did studies and experiments using precise measurements and data, statistics, the latest high tech electronic equiptment, personal observations, testamonies, etc. seeking an answer to: "What is largest number of angels that can stand on the tip of a pin?" and complained my most accurate positive data was being "ridiculed and attacked" by "close minded atheist" skeptics; would I be doing science if my stuff showed up in some type of scientific journal? Kazuba (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Science isn't defined by the use of lasers or statistics. If you use the scientific method to generate and test hypotheses which describe and predict aspects of the natural world, then you're "doing science". MastCell  04:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) lol - oh, I gotta chime in on this one.

first, science (if it's defined by anything) is defined by methodology, and that includes creating and structuring the parameters of your research question. the problem with a question like "What is largest number of angels that can stand on the tip of a pin?" is that you'd need to define 'angel' in terms that can meaningfully measured in terms of size, volume, or other relevant material properties that might play into the relationship with a pin tip. If you can't do that, you can't develop a research design that would be remotely acceptable to other scientists.

second, merely showing up in a scientific journal is irrelevant. the purpose of scientific journals is to present research to other scientists so that they can investigate and try to replicate the results. If no one else can replicate the results, or even understand the research, then it will ultimately be ignored as an unimpartant publication.

third if you can meaningly define the question, and if other scientists can replicate and use the result, then guess what: you're doing science. hooray! --Ludwigs2 04:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Some thought-provoking points are made here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this took off. This is what I put on Kazuba's talk page

No, but you'd be doing science if you asked "are there such things as angels." In the case you describe, it is assumed a priori that the angels exist. Doing the processes of science on that which assumes the unproven is not science, but doing the processes of science to prove the unproven is science. However, no one has clearly defined what "science" is. That's just my opinion. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As Ludwigs.... Once you prove the existence and properties of angels, you can do science on them relative to pins. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And once you establish replicable properties of angels, they cease to be supernatural and become phenomena subject to natural laws, open to scientific testing. However, producing a statistical anomaly which you claim shows that there must be angels on the pin is a mark of pseudoscience. The meaning of science has changed since its 18th century meaning of general information, and while there is much disagreement about pinning down how to define it, there is virtual unanimity on issues of demarcation. . . dave souza, talk 09:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

One must also consider the great gaping holes between the atoms and how angels interact with with electromagnetic fields (Gaiman & Pratchett, 1990).

More usefully, I think that one of the key issues for deciding how to treat parapsychology is whether SETI astronomers vs. UFOlogists is a good analogy, or if it all assumes the existence of angels. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

ugh. The science/pseudoscience thing is such a pain... it seems to me that the issue here is the relationship between research and metaphysics: 'theory' is always metaphysical, and research is the tool that bridges the gap between the metaphysical and physical reality. A metaphysical claim (a theory) might be correct or incorrect; everyone knows this. Scientific research is aimed at finding practical, reproducible applications of the theory - it accepts the theory as de facto true if it can find them, and basically ignores the theory if it can't. Pseudoscientific research tends to get caught up in trying to demonstrate or 'prove' whether the ontological claim is true or false - the practical use of the theory is basically irrelevant to the effort. so (for comparison) the theory of gravity is an unprovable ontological claim about the nature of the universe, but researchers have found nearly infinite practical uses for it, and so it is accepted (de facto) as a scientific truth. The existence of angels is also an unprovable ontological claim about the nature of the universe; however, a question like "how many angels fit on the tip of a pin" is quixotic, designed to challenge the ontology directly rather than put the theory to any practical use. that makes it pseudoscientific. the same thing with SETI astronomers and UFOlogists - SETI people have a well-defined research program that produces practical results on a daily basis (i.e., streams of radio telescope data to be analyzed). UFOlogists spend most of their time trying to convince others to consider the possibility of UFOs on the weight of anecdotal evidence (and even fall into government cover-up theories when they can't find sufficiently convincing anecdotes).

really there's a lot of overlap between the two, and the stark division that gets drawn between them is so misleading. I mean, what do you do with someone like Tesla, who is such a completely typical pseudoscientist except that most things he did worked? --Ludwigs2 19:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Left Half of the Half Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		I hereby award thee, Martinphi, the Left Half of the Half Barnstar, for willingness to compromise and for nice messages, by thee and by Orangemarlin, demonstrating co-opero-bridge-ification of a type likely to assist significantly in constructing this encyclopedia. Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For compromise with Orangemarlin at Talk:Orgone, and for nice messages. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :D We need to perform more co-bridgeoperations. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ed Dames Prediction, What was really said?

http://allnewsweb.com/page50.html It is now claimed Ed Dames, who did not find Steve Fossett with search parties as he said he would,(no effort at all) supposedly pinpointed Steve Fossett's crash site by remote viewing on the "Coast to Coast" show. All News Web This would have to be 23 May 2008 show. This is the only Coast to Coast show between the time Fossett was lost, 3 Sept 2008 and found, 28 Sept 2008, when Dames appeared. Does anyone have the "EXACT" words of Dame's prediction? Are they the same as what he now claims?Kazuba (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Psionics

There is discussion over there regarding a proposal to merge the relevant portions of Psionics to Psychokinesis and leave the former as a disambiguation page for paranormal vs. gaming uses of the term. Nobody has yet indicated that the two terms are distinct enough to require separate articles - would you care to weigh in one way or another? Thanks, - Eldereft (cont.) 19:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Storme Aerison

I nominated the article, whose content you removed with your concerns about policies, for deletion.Synchronism (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A unusual favor

First of all, let me start by saying that I know that this is outside of your normal area of interest. In fact, that's part of the reason that I'm talking to you. In an ongoing discussion over at Talk:John Wilkes Booth, we are at a standstill over the issue of fringe theories. I've just gone to WP:FRINGE and looked at the user pages of several contributors, until I found two who seemed to have opposite views on WP:FRINGE. You are one of the two that I found. Would you be willing to look at Talk:John Wilkes Booth#Booth escaped theory and the ones below it that deal with this topic, and offer your opinion? I know that this is not the sort of thing you normally do (nor is it for the other editor I selected), but you do appear to maintain an interest in WP:FRINGE, and coming from the outside, you might really be able to help us. Thank you. Unschool (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Unschool (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Incest Taboo

Well, the article needed a wake-up call. I am still looking for a couple of citations, and am trying to get some other people won project:anthropology to go over it, but I am glad you think it is back on track, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

Martinphi, you have been cautioned before about interactions with ScienceApologist. I see that at the WP:FRINGE guideline, you reverted him. However, you are not engaging at the guideline's talkpage (though to be fair, neither is he). However, this may be considered a violation of your ArbCom restrictions, so if you continue with this course of action, your account access may be blocked. Please do better to engage in discussion, rather than just reverting someone with whom you have a long history of conflict. Thanks, --Elonka 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this: before, such things were said, and while I stopped reverting him, he did not stop reverting me. Indeed, I was still avoiding reverting him long after he no longer had any qualms about reverting me with nasty edit summaries. Meanwhile, as per recently at psychic, he would attack me on talk pages. After several weeks or months (?) of this, I told his tutor that I could no longer refrain from reverting him directly: it is just too much strain to do that when he is under no such real restriction. I'll look and see if you've given him the same warning. If he is under the same rules as I am, and you really mean it unlike Vassyana (who just gave up), then fine. But I'm not going to be held to a different standard than SA. I'm willing to be held to the same standard, though, even though my general behavior on Misplaced Pages means that I should have much more leeway to revert or make mistakes than he does (that doesn't mean the same restrictions: restrictions should be based on actual behavior).

Further, I reverted him only after two other editors had. One revert. So it's not as if I was doing anything out of the ordinary. That's just WP:BRD.

But, there is no ArbCom restriction on me concerning ScienceApologist. My ArbCom restriction was to not be disruptive, and reverting in the way I did could not be considered so. I am then to be page banned, not blocked.

You want us to disengage: that's not possible, as we edit the same articles. What you should want is that we behave in equally civil and non-disruptive ways. And you should apply any restrictions based on actual user behavior. If he can manage that, all will be well. But "disengage" means he and I can't edit the same articles.

My behavior is so much better than his that I should not be treated in the same manner as he is: that people think restrictions need to be the same for both of us is merely a matter of wiki politics, part of the double standard that SandyGeorgia talks about (see quotes above). It is not in any way based on user behavior. It never was. It's just that the fact is so much clearer now than it was a year ago.

So, in a nutshell: if you really mean it, well and good. That is, if you are going to do something about it rather than just talk. No admin who took on SA ever did, and you haven't yet. I got the short end of the stick because I abided by any restriction or request, and SA did not.

Question: if I'd said something on the talk page like "I reverted to the longstanding version which several editors, including myself, seem to consider better. Please discuss the edits and form consensus before reverting again" would that have helped? I can do that. However, I should not be required to do a detailed analysis of his edits. It is for him to convince and form a consensus for change, not for me to convince him and form a consensus for no change. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi, this was not acceptable, to try and downgrade the WP:FRINGE guideline to an essay in the middle of an edit war. You have already been cautioned about disruption, and I am sorry that you did not take the caution to heart. To make it clear though: Per the discretionary sanctions authorized at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, I am instituting a page ban. Please do not edit the WP:FRINGE guideline for the next 30 days. You are welcome to participate at the talkpage, but please do not make direct edits to the guideline. Thanks, --Elonka 01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Go to Hell

A colleague of mine will hep you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't see that in searching for weather in Hell (: ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Raymond Moody

I don't think you examined the source of the mental hospital stuff and Raymond Moody. It came from an interview with Moody, himself. The material is most likely fact. He said it. I am going to put it back. I don't think you took the time to read the source material. You just jumped the gun. I'm not criticizing the guy. I am only supplying his own data. Are you in a hurry or something? Kazuba (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Why don't you contact me first before you jump to conclusions. (You seem to do this often. That is the reason you buy a lot of this PSI stuff which is well...shaky, to say the least) Take your time. Have you ever read "Life to Life" and examined Moody's sources? I did a long time ago. WOW! Kazuba (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean "Life After Life," I suppose. Anyway, this is just the way WP goes... ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct it is "Life After Life" my error. Slip of the lip. Like I said it was long ago. 30 years? It was recently recommended to me by my grievance counciliar. Some things never change. For NDEs The interest should be in the LEGALLY dead not the clinically dead. It is impossible for me to say what state of mind my wife was in before she died. But she did misidentify people. (I think) a day to a couple days before. A hospice nurse told me she could probably hear. Kazuba (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be taking Moody seriously, but I'm not sure in what way. I'll look more at the source when I have time. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is the same old same old

Moody ventured outside his field of expertise and was caught by the irrational and the occult. This is not a place for innocent lamb amateurs who know nothing about the various tricks the mind can play. They even prefer to avoid a critical study of the past of this strange magick realm. It gets em' all the time. They are so naive it is difficult to fathom. Who knows more about magic and deception than magicians? Men of science? No way. It ain't gonna happen. Ever. These are not people who make their living by deceiving others. Deception can be ingenious. Say hallucination, say delusion, say creative imagination, say careless, say mentally ill. These common human errors are real. You just don't get it, do you? kazuba 05:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And you just haven't read the book, have you? You think hospital patients were magicians who, for some reason, were just making up stories without using any magic tricks??? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the story

They did NOT make up stories. They were just on unfamilar ground. They mistook somaform? dissociation for a reality. Their experience with the unreal was at a minimum. I don't think the people of the past made up stories about witchcraft, magic and the supernatural. When you read their words they had experiences they just did not understand properly. Same with NDEs and OBEs. If you believe in voodoo there is a good chance it will work on you. Especially if someone is driving you crazy by beating on a drum all night and you are in an uncomfortable place being eaten alive by mosquitoes. (The middle of the swamp?) Here in Detroit Voodoo priests supposedly sprinkled Lycopodium around the outside sills of windows. The victim inside the building dies of lung conjestion. At least that is what I heard from a herbalist when I tried to buy some. Ever read Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad and what it is based on? Conrad watched Europeans go crazy in the jungle. (The movie is Apocalyse Now. Take a look at the books Brando is reading.) As for Moody I originally had two links. Perhaps that made it confusing. I dropped the first. One of my favorite explorers into the strange places of the mind is Ronald K. Siegel Your mind can really fool you. When I wanted to know about folie a deux and shared visual hallucinations he was the one I contacted. He is an expert. The human mind is very fragile. Just look at the news and human history. Moody like Elizabeth Kubler-Ross went over the edge. I think it was due to being around death, suffering and hopelessness. These are tough things to handle and not be affected. My wife's deep religious faith calmed her as she heroically faced an inevitable death. I found the goodbye letter she wrote me saying I will always be in her prayers. Super chick. Who could ask for more? Kazuba (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)