Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:32, 1 February 2007

This user is a part of WikiProject Supernatural, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the supernatural. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Old Conversations

• CCS
• Images
• Reach Out
• Project Paranormal
• Other

Sandbox

Award from Dynamo_ace

Keep up the good work!-Dynamo_ace Talk

MA Userbox

Today, there was a merger of Category:Martial Artist Wikipedians into Category:Wikipedian martial artists. This resulted in a userbox {{User:TonyTheTiger/Userboxes/Martialartist}} being added to the category. This userbox is available to you. TonyTheTiger 21:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Kim Possible

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I hereby award Perfectblue97 the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for all the hard work in expanding the Kim Possible pages. Keep it up! Jumping cheese 06:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh...I'm not sure who the editor was talking too, since you can't hear the person on the other line. I guess all it establishes is that the principle is a woman. =) Jumping cheese 21:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...the editor is probably talking to a student. Jumping cheese 07:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Kim Possible Canon

Greetings, PB97. this is in regards to edits to Shego's page on 1/21 or 1/22. A few questions, if you would be so kind: Where is this "canon" for KP? Who's to judge? Does saying that Shego is "jealous" instead of simply "contemptuous" violate this canon? Is it okay to have some leeway in terms of profiling these characters? I hope so, or else Misplaced Pages itself wouldn't be a user-edited system, it would be just an encyclopedia. Sorry, and thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.185.76.5 (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

KP Cannon - response to message on my talk page from unregistered user

I'm not certain where to answer this, so I'll put it under your initial question and on the talk page.

There have been a lot of arguments over fictional character over the years, particularly with users reading different things into a character based on their own experiences or cultural background (for example, a user empathizes with a character because they come from a similar background or have had a similar experience in life, or a user setting against a character for similar reasons). In order to keep this to a minimum, and to ensure a uniform approach etc, Misplaced Pages came up with some basic rules and guidelines about cannon, in universe descriptions and other elements (Most of which are not really at issue here).

Put simply, there is some leeway, at least compared to writing about history or science, but it's quite small. In the simplest terms, we must stick to cannon - what is depicted in a KP comic book, episode, or game. However, we must be very very careful to stick to limitations of the script (my main issue with your edits) and not to read ahead any further.

For example on Bonnie's page you said that her attitude was setting her up for bad relationships in the future. This might be true in real life, given her personality type, but unless there is an episode that shows her future self in a bad relationship, you can't say it. You also said that her sisters might treat her mean because she was the youngest child and they were envious of the attention that their mother lavished on her. It might be true in real life, but unless Lonnie says something like "I hate the way mom always pays attention to you just because you're the youngest", then what you've said is supposition rather than cannon and cannot be used

In short, something has to be said more or less directly in the script for us to write it in a character profile. If shego says "I wish I were more like Kim", or "Kim is always showing me up", then the writers have purposefully established her as being envious of Kim or her skills. If they don't then you can't simply look at her actions and say that they are indicative of envy.

I know, it's frustrating. If it helps, you should try not to think of this as a book report or a psychological case study, and more as an exercise in transcription.

We're here to report on what is most blatant on screen. Not to look deeper, not to come up with hypothesis, and not to suggest why something is the way that it is unless it is stated clearly though dialog etc.

Take a quick look at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and Misplaced Pages:Fancruft for ideas, and then explore the links.

Peace

perfectblue 10:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

KP Canon - I concede

I see what you are saying PB97. You presented your case quite elegantly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.185.76.5 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

It's nothing personal, I don't mean to dampen your enthusiasm. I often find myself wanting to go deeper too.

perfectblue 17:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't know how these response things work, so... But don't think that I am an amateur in profiling violence. I'm somewhat convinced that KP has unresolved anger issues relating to a very very deep fear inside herself that she may be incompetent. Also, nobody is born a violent person-- you can only be made a sociopath like Bonnie or someone with adult anti-social personality disorder like Shego through "years of systematic abuse" to quote Hannibal Lecter. I'm almost as convinced of this as I am that you are a young (under 20) agnostic living in New England (or some such blue state), maybe brought up on stories of Chinese mythology from your father and taught to be an avid reader and a kind young man by your grandparents (or someone else who had a large impact on your life), PB97. Sorry if I went on too long-- and I'm sorry I like profiling so much. My ideas on KP can only be as creepily accurate as the profile I just posted above.

I think that you're reading a little too far ahead again. You're probably right about Bonnie, though you can't really it like that (you can hint though) because of rules about sticking to cannon (you can say that her sisters bullied her one episode, but you can't really push too far beyond that), but it has already been stated why Shego went to the dark side, and it wasn't abuse. She got fed up with her over eager goody-two-shoes brothers and felt that being the bad guy was less restrictive and more exciting (Shego likes being the 'bad girl').

Unfortunately, while you can nail Bonnie, your profile of me is way off. I wrote my personal profile based on the style and expectations of the audience who are most likely to read it, rather than on my own style. I don't really ahve anything to hide, so I can tell you that I might be editing a kid's cartoon, but I'm much older than you might think (old enough to have kids who are old enough to watch Kim Possible in fact). I was also raised many thousands of miles away from New England (or any blue state for that matter), and my Chinese connection comes from living in central China rather than cultural hand-me-downs. Nice try, anyway.

perfectblue 07:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary of EVP

Hi, just to alert you to the discussion on the EVP page. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

MacRae

I really liked how you expanded the summary I originated for Spiricom. I wonder if you might do the same for MacRae; it needs 3 or 4 more sentences to be useful, as MacRae is mentioned again and again on proponent websites and it appears that his work is thought of as highly significant. Providing a neutral view of his work might help head off some future edit wars. Although we differ on some points related to the paranormal, I find your editing to be generally even-handed and appropriate to this article, hence I am making this request. --- LuckyLouie 20:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good job, while it lasted. Tom Butler's back at the article making changes now. I seriously think this artcile is headed for arbitration. --- LuckyLouie 20:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary

User:Martinphi and I have come to a consensus agreement on the first two paragraphs of the summary, as it stands now:

• Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is a term coined by Colin Smyth to describe speech or speech-like sounds of paranormal origin occurring on previously unused recording media. It was first reported by Raymond Bayless and popularized by Konstantin Raudive. As with all paranormal phenomena, the existense of EVP is disputed. Some say that the sounds thought to be EVP are caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits, but others say they can be explained by such things as pareidolia or radio signals.
• EVP is currently defined by the paranormal research group AA-EVP as any "anomalous voices captured on any form of audio recording" that is discovered upon playback, but was not detected at the time that the recording was made, and which does not appear to originate from any local source. EVP are typically brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are also claimed. They are normally in a language understood by those present at the time of recording.

How can we get you "on board" for this agreement? Please advise. --- LuckyLouie 01:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• "some say" - yeah...I don't like that either, for difgferent reasons, but I swallowed it. I think SA is gonna have issues with it too, but we'll cross that bridge later.
• "My main concern though is that naming the AA-EVP ties the description to an individual group, which means that it can be disputed based on that group rather than on the description itself. I'd feel more comfortable if we used a general attribution to the paranormal community who believe many things, rather than to a group who believe a specific thing, or if we used somebody well known like Clark as a reference."

Sure, but if we change the attribution, shouldn't we modify the definition? We shouldn't quote the exact words of a defintion AA-EVP originated and then say it's from "the paranormal community" or somesuch euphemism to hide the fact that it's really the AA-EVP speaking, eh? Got any ideas? (Who is Clark?) --- LuckyLouie 15:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about: "EVP is currently defined by many in the paranormal community as..." (and then lose the quotation marks?). LuckyLouie 16:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that an UNattributed definition is perceived as the equivalent of "Misplaced Pages defines EVP as X (based on a citation in a footnote that most people won't read)". Not overtly stating that the definition comes from a source because the source is controversial seems very deceptive to me. Like an article on God saying "God is defined as the supreme being who lives in heaven" with the footnote citing the Roman Catholic catechism. So...we really need an overt attribution. ....how about "many paranormal groups and some researchers who study it" ? Got any more ideas? LuckyLouie 16:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

MacRae works for me since he is an active researcher who (according to his books) believes that EVP exists. But to include Baruss would make it sound as if he endorses EVP as being "(our definition)" based on one set of experiments he did which did not confirm that EVP exists. So how bout just MacRae? LuckyLouie 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

perfectblue 17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think any defintion that begins with "according to..." implies direct endorsement by the persons named. Baruss is the wrong fit. Maybe his pre-experiment defintion of EVP was the same as MacRae, but his post-experiment definition of EVP certainly isn't. OK, how about "according to researchers who conducted their own independent studies on EVP....." (Bear in mind this attribution business is a big sticking point with SA and others, and if we can get something I can sell to them, we are home free...maybe) --- LuckyLouie 18:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

PS - if we can't reach agreement right away, no sweat. Take time to think about it. In any case, let's keep the friendly dialogue open. ---LuckyLouie 18:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I plugged in the Macrae name. Now I will go seek User:Zoe. --- LuckyLouie 20:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

KP episodes

Thank you soooo much for creating pages for the Kim Possible episodes. You and User:DanTD have been creating pages for the episodes...so I look forward to seeing more. Have fun editing! =) Jumping cheese 04:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A very minor request

When you sign your posts on talk pages, would you mind not putting your signature on a separate line? A separate line lengthens the post (typically, by two lines) and is distracting (to some people, at least). Thanks. -- John Broughton 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Second request. Apparently, once you finish your comments on a talk page, you're hitting the ] key several times to create a new paragraph, then typing four tildes for your signature. Would you mind not doing those unnecessary s and just type four tildes after the last sentence of your comment. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 04:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambig

Thanxs for going out of your way to disambiguate the KP episodes. However, there is no need to disambiguate a page if no other pages are of the same name. Only episodes like "Crush" needs to be labeled as "Crush (Kim Possible)", since there are other pages named "Crush". =) Jumping cheese 09:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh...I see. Sorry about that! I'm really embarrassed about that.
It might be a good idea to move the page to simply "Kimitation Nation", since no other page is also named that. Thanxs for creating a such an extensive page for the episode and sorry again for the misunderstanding. ^_^ Jumping cheese 10:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem Found! Whitespace

• It is the Resume Section ... just remove it and you will see the white space problem is fixed! so we gotta fix this section! -nima baghaei 18:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• this is THE part of the coding that is causing the issue:

|-
{{#if:{{{Pjob|}}}|<tr><td>Paranormal Area:</td><td>{{{Pjob}}}</td></tr>}}
|-
{{#if:{{{Affiliates|}}}|<tr><td>Affiliates:</td><td>{{{Affiliates}}}</td></tr>}}

-nima baghaei 18:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Whitespace problem fixed!

• Woho! ok i fixed it! Cheers! (:O) -nima baghaei 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What's paranormal?

Hi, I noticed you changed the sentence which said that all paranormal phenomena are disputed to saying that "all paranormal phenomena are not disputed, many are known to have been hoaxes, or have not been sufficiently researched for there to be a dispute".

But, if they are known to be hoaxes, or have been scientifically proved, they aren't paranormal anymore, are they? It's common on paranormal articles to say always. What say you? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal question

I hope you don't mind, but I noticed your userboxes that say you speak Chinese and that you're homesick, I was just wondering if you were living in the United States and what your background was? I was going to email you privately, but I don't think you have email enabled - you can write me at Dread_Locke@hotmail.com if you like! Dreadlocke ☥ 02:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal practicum

Hi again Perfectblue,

I've just started an essay where I'm trying to address some of the errors often committed on Paranormal pages mostly by super-skeptics. Dreadlocke reviewed it, and though we needed something like it. It is very rough still. I don't really know how people go about these things because I am relatively new to Misplaced Pages. But, if people wanted to collaborate, we might be able to save a whole lot of time explaining why, for instance, you don't' need to put "supposed" before every mention of a paranormal power. There are a lot of other points, and I see other people going over them just as often as I do. In fact it's so common that I was able to find this just now without really looking (from the Psychic talk page):

1. If psychics are people who have psychic ability, then the article needs to state that there are no known psychics. That's why I put in "claimed", which was taken out.

2. What randomness tests have proven psychic ability? Bubba73 (talk), 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to answer your first question: a psychic is a psychic. If a person doesn't have the psychic abilities described, then they aren't a psychic. There are people who claim to be psychics, those can be referred to as "claimed" or "claim to be" or "believed to be" - such as Sylvia Browne or John Edward, but a psychic is a person who has those powers; claims don't enter into it.

Anyway, these are the kinds of points I want to cover. Perhaps you could take a look at it, and if you think it is worth pursuing, maybe you could tell me how to get others on board. The paranormal project talk page? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)