| Revision as of 07:58, 7 September 2008 editJohn Vandenberg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,507 edits →Don't refactor someone else's talk page comment: agree with Francis Schonken← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:21, 7 September 2008 edit undoMartinphi (talk | contribs)12,452 edits →Don't refactor someone else's talk page commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| :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). <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 07:58, 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). <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 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. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 08:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:21, 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)