This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lisapollison (talk | contribs) at 11:57, 13 May 2007 (→WikiEssay? []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:57, 13 May 2007 by Lisapollison (talk | contribs) (→WikiEssay? [])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This page is not for reporting the paranormal, it is for discussing Misplaced Pages articles related to the paranormal.

Archives

Contents

WikiProject Paranormal

Template:WikiProject Paranormal navigation

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paranormal: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-08-05

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Paranormal Project‑class

	This page falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
Project	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

	The current Paranormal Collaboration of the Month is Cottingley Fairies. Please improve the article any way you can. Every month a different Paranormal-related topic is picked. The candidate with the most support as of 31 March 2007 UTC will become the next Collaboration of the Month. The current time is 18:02, Sunday, December 29, 2024 (UTC).
	The previous collaboration was Electronic voice phenomenon.

The Wyoming Incident - anyone know if this is real or a hoax?

I'm considering doing an article on this purported incident of spooky-ooky TV hacking, but I think the whole thing's a hoax. I can't find any original source material and all the internet mentions say the same basic crap. It seems to begin in 2004. Here's a link to the alleged video and the story:

The Wyoming Incident at Google Video

It IS a creepy story and even if it is a hoax, it might deserve a small article. it seems to be playing on the Pokemon Panic as well as the Max Headroom hacking incident. Feedback? Lisapollison 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe anything ever happened in Wyoming. And before someone tries to ban me, it's a joke. Davkal 23:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The information given on the right margin in that link is quite believable, even if it is fake. As it stands, it would probably be best to seek out sources for all known television hijackings in the United States, or the world. If this has been done, and it's not found, then I lean as well toward hoax. --Chr.K. 06:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Chr.K., I have done a number of searches and all the references to the Wyoming Incident appear to be based on the same second-hand report dating from 2004. Still, it's pretty creepy and it's remarkable how many folks believe it really happened. Don't you think that if it did, I'd be able to find a newspaper mention or something? I can't even be sure that the incident is alleged to have happened in 2004, just that this is when reports start to show up. My husband reminds me that in the second Hellraiser film, Pinhead says "I have such sightsa to show you" which is sort of similar to the video's statement "you will see such pretty things" but not similar enough. Also, there is the Videodrome connection. If any of you can find some original sources on this, please link me to them.Lisapollison 17:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently looking. --Chr.K. 09:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There's already an article on the Max Headroom-interrupting-Doctor Who incident: WTTW#Hijack. DrWho42 19:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There is also an article on that incident here: Max Headroom Pirating Incident which states that no further such pirating incidents have ocurred. Therefore, I'd guess the Alleged Wyoming Incident (AKA: You Will See Such Pretty Things) is a hoax. Even so, it might merit an article since folks viewing it claim to be effected in unnatrual ways kinda like the eBay haunted paintingLisapollison

But the MHPI article might be out of date, or badly informed 9if I may insert a spanner into the works!). However, even if it didn't happen, it could be worthy of an article, simply as a hoax-about-a-hoax, or an urban legend. Totnesmartin 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As above, a notable hoax is still a notable event.

perfectblue 08:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

] Puddytang 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that the same information, though? All the references seem to be, so the question would be whether we can find a newspaper source on it to know for certain. --Chr.K. 09:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dazeytweeter: It's a hoax. It was done by three people over at Something Aweful.

Posted by the Puppetmaster

I was reading one of the older incarnations in the creepy things series when I made up the story about the Wyoming Incident. I picked Wyoming and Niobrara because I knew them both to be rather sparsely populated. I then made some fake screenshots as well as the story of the hijacking. Brief interest developed in the incident, but I forgot about it pretty quickly.
IanJ brought the Wyoming Incident up in the Max Headroom thread. I decided to elaborate further on the story. People became even more interested, so I decided to make a video of it. I recorded the sounds from the WGBH logo (which I altered severely) and used a pitch generator for the actual faces part of the video. I did not use Poser. I used FaceGen Modeller. Frame by frame, I took pictures of the faces, animating them so that they moved a little. I then took the frames into photoshop, clone-brushed the SL logo off of them, and ran them through the reticulation filter. I then put them together through Windows Movie Maker. The text screens were done with courier in MSPaint.
Anyway, I posted the video to Google and then linked to it from SA. It became incredibly popular and appeared on a ton of blogs. The most intelligent discussion about it seemed to be at Unfiction.com. ViralDetector (The Detector) helped me by registering there and posting as a plant. I wrote most of the more literature-based stuff (GMiller's blog, The Masks We Wear, So Tired). Soon we released the second and third videos. They were made the same way as the previous ones.
We made up a huge mythology around the videos using stuff from Neil Gaiman, Alan Moore, Greek Mythology, Lovecraft, Modern Conspiracy Theories, Thelema, etc. OC_James worked on most of the mythology, though it became severely altered by the people "interacting" with the story. We pretty much played along with what the players seemed to want, and handed out some arbitrary tasks to people. It should be noted that me and OC_James live in Anderson.
Anyway, we wanted to do all nine videos, but interest in the videos and "game" were waning. We did Children stuff to knock up attention. When I noticed there were 59 people viewing the forums (a high for some time), I sent ViralDetector in to post "YOU WANNA KNOW WHUT" and "FARTZ". Truth be told, we were getting pretty bored by the end with everyone else.
A lot of the stuff we did was basic psychology. We're all goons (now), but OC_James has a name he will not give away to anyone and pretty much hates the internet. I think this was the longest he's been on the internet in about a year.

Case closed. So should we make an article or what? Puddytang 05:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite its actually being an alternate reality game, I still think it is noteworthy enough to make for an article. DrWho42 05:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I do believe it warrants an article because the video pops up a lot and folks who leave comments believe its real. They even say that they feel lightheaded or dizzy after watching it. It's as if the power of suggestion has gone haywire. If someone wants to take a stab at it, go for it. i'll help.Lisapollison 06:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's known as the placebo effect, btw. --Chr.K. 10:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dazeytweeter: If you're looking for sources for an article inclusion look here http://happycube.wetpaint.com/

If anybody needs any additional information contact me at dazeytweeter@yahoo.com

I intend to create an article for this in the next few days. Could we leave this discussion up a while longer for source material? Thanks LiPollis 00:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, apparently at the website of this (is it an ARG??) thing, it gives plenty of reasons WHY the goons from SA didnt do it.

Heres the page.

http://thehappycube.proboards34.com/index.cgi?board=hackjobjohnny&action=display&thread=1174098036

Something to look into? --74.134.12.230 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Case NOT Closed I'd say! See, this is why we should do an article. this is mysterious, spooky and controversial. if anyone else wants to take a stab writing the stub for the articvle, feel free. it will take me a few more days to finish some other work before i can get to it. I'd be happy to flesh out anything you write. I ask for help becuase i'm hopeless when it comes to uploading images. I'd like to see a screenshot or two from the video. This is a lot like the ebay haunted picture becuase people do report being upset and made ill by viewing the google video. LiPollis 23:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wyoming Incident is now part of the article List of fictional occurrences of broadcast signal intrusion. I believe we have Rob T Firefly to thank for this. It's not a very long mention, but it's a start and a good way to have it appear. Thanks! LiPollis 09:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mel's Hole

The Mel's Hole article needs some help. It's an interesting topic (regardless of its legitimacy), and I think Jaysweet has been doing a great job cleaning it up. But the subject seems to suffer from a lack of credible external sources. Does anyone know if it's mentioned in any other bona-fide media sources (aside from the onces already listed on the article page)? --Careax 16:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I took a look. Articles based almost entirely on Art Bell'show are always problematic. Looks like there's not many ways to improve the article becuase Mel is just waaaaay out there and is the only source for this info. There are some discussion groups and fans of Mel who are still looking for the original hole but it coul all be solved with a word or three from Mel himself. I do plan to add some discussion to the similarities to Mel's Holes (there are more than one now) and the delusion Charles Manson had about a similar hole he believed to exist out in Death Valley. In the words of the immortalEd Sanders oooh-weee-oh! LiPollis 00:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on trying to bring this article up to snuff and I could use some help. As with most Art Bell subjects, it's hard to dfind citeable sources other than the Art Bell show itself. if anyone can help me confirm that there were pre-existing legends of a bottomless hole in that area of Washington State, I'd be much obliged. Thanks.LiPollis 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

New Cat and info box

I've added and partially populated a new cat "Category:Paranormal terminology" for paranormal and parapsychology terms, and I've created a new infobox for paranormal terms, too.

Template:Infobox_Paranormalterms

perfectblue 14:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Megalith

Why is the topic of Megaliths not covered in paranormal interest? Pjacobi removed it with the (not paranormal) edit.

J. D. Redding 17:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't asking dumb rhetoric questions not a bannable offense? --Pjacobi 17:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably for the same reasons why making ad hominem is. We observe WP:CIVILITY here, which means WP:NPA - perfectblue 17:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem: isn't evolution subject to paranormal speculation -- especially with regards to the transhuman? If so, why isn't evolution claimed by this project? Just because a topic is obliquely related doesn't mean that the project should tag it as a relevant article. Megaliths are primarily archeological, not paranormal. What is paranormal would be New Age beliefs regarding megaliths, for example. --ScienceApologist 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there isn't much around suggesting that evolution is the result of ghosts and ghouls, I take it that you are referring to creationism and ID. Both faith issue which project paranormal doesn't really deal with (We don't usually deal with anything involving religious doctrine or scriptures). However, if you're referring to the Distant Origin principle (that human evolution was started by aliens), then I think that we already cover that. It's mentioned on several pages about contactees and UFO cults. Feel free to add our tag to the evolution page if you like, but it's up to you to defend your edit to the people already there. Personally, I don't think that the religious people or the biologists would take kindly to suggestions that the boogie man passes the notability criteria for that page. - perfectblue 07:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProjects do not "claim" articles, they maintain lists of articles that the colloborators of the WikiProject are interested in, and tag them accordingly. If the editors of WikiProject Paranormal consider megaliths (or evolution, or whatever) to be a topic of interest to the Project, who is to say "no, you're not allowed to be interested in that"?? --Stormie 01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a rule saying that it has to be directly related, in order to be under the scope of a project, unless I am mistaken. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Best to review it in the context of WP:PROJGUIDE Shot info 04:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it says "Many articles will be tagged by more than one WikiProject." Thanks for showing me that (: Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re the evolution article. That could probably be tagged too. Not least because DNA is regarded by some (even it's discoverer I believe) as the ultimate oopart. Not to mention the fact that it has recently been discovered that the 97% (or whatever it is) of DNA that is referred to as "junk DNA" contains chemical "sequences" arranged in patterns and frequencies that are otherwise only found in human languages. That is, it is found to correspond with Zipf's law!Davkal 09:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish you well finding a WP:V for that that won't be instantly rejected by the crew at Evolution on WP:RS grounds. Honestly, I find pro-evolution people can often be as much true-believers as as the Creationists. I'm not a fanatic by any means, but the way that they simply dismiss certain things or make certain leaps scares me. You'd have to pay me before I'd edit that article with any of this. - perfectblue 10:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Davkal, Pefectblue97, and Martinphi are unintentionally proving the point of Pjacobi. Stormie is in principle correct, but when certain groups make what we might call "perspective impositions" on articles that is very problematic. Whether we want to admit it or not, this particular WikiProject has become a vehicle for POV-pushing and the comments of many of the editors here indicate that if, for example, evolution were to be selected these editors would make it their business to basically disrupt the article. Scary stuff. --ScienceApologist 10:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything that you've said back at you with Paranormal swapped "Rational skeptic" etc. - perfectblue 14:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually perfectblue the systamatic mobbing of paranormal articles by editors objecting to th term would fall under Pseudoskepticism. Rational Skeptics tend to believe that it is NOT their job to supress belief in and articles about beliefs in spirtiual, religious, mystical or esoteric subjects. These same folks are mobbing the page on psuedoskepticism itself to try and get it deleted or merged into another article to take the bite of of criticism of pseudoskeptics from within the skeptical community itself. As an anthropologist, I and others in my field have written about the dogmas within extreme skepticism and how that end of the movement has taken on all the trappings of a religion. There are "sacred texts", "gurus" and even "apostate" skeptics who are maligned for advocating a more respecftful tone towards people's religious beliefs. Skepticism functions best when it seeks to provide alternative real world explanations, not when it seeks to destory and supress all other beliefs and explanations. Penn & Teller had great fun last night ridiculing people who believe in spirit possession. Some of their attacks were founded in science but they quickly veered off into viscious-land as they often do when covering religion because they honestly believe that only chumps would believe in God. Ask them! They'll be happy to tell you why theists are inferior, stupid and worthy of their contempt. it's hard to watch simply becuase it serves no real world purpose. They didn't disavow a single person of any belief, they merely preached to their insider choir and had fun calling people "A-holes", their favorite thing to do. Now I love Penn & Teller's show. It's entertaining. However, when it veers off into contemptious hatered for anyone not as enlightened as they are, it makes me squirm . I mention this because their attitude is mirrors that of a number of activists systematically running through all the paranormal tagged pages and challeneging first the project tag and if that doesn't prevail, then the move on to sources. If that fails, then they draw members of this project into edit wars or personal insult exchanges. Sounds an awful lot like the religious wars on wikipedia, eh?LiPollis 15:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus needed

There's a "bit of disagreement" over whether Megalith comes under Project Paranormal's jurisdiction. Consensus is needed. Please make your feelings known here.

perfectblue 08:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Why? Because some consider megaliths to be actual examples of "paranormal" phenomena. For example, the Stone of the South at Baalbek is thought to weigh over 1000 tons - nobody has any idea how ancient peoples could have moved such a thing - so it is said. And this same, or a similar, story is told regarding many megalithic sites throughout the world. The megalith article should probably cover some of these points.Davkal 09:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Teslascope

Finally got this article up! let us enjoy and expand this article hehe (:O) -Nima Baghaei 17:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Very nice work! it's rare to see a new article with both references AND a photo. Great job. I'll see if I can add anything to it. Thanks also for letting usknow about it.LiPollis 17:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Audrey Santo

I have recently revised this article to include the Catholic Church's findings (or lack thereof) regarding the alleged miracles said to have happened in her home or as a result of prayer to her. I have not tagged the article as part of our project out of concern that such an action might be met with hostility due to her recent death. However, it really is a paranormal article. She was alleged to have manifested stigmata, "Miracle oil" was said to seep from the walls in her room and healings were attributed to her acting as a victim soul. I'd welcome input from other editors. Her funeral is tomorrow and it is likely that a push for sainthood will start soon.LiPollis 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Carlos Castaneda

I have heavily revised this article to try and include facts and criticisms. A very long and revealing article in Salon appeared last week that summarized some of the more troubling aspects of Castaneda's apparant cult of personailty that appears to have led to the suicide of his closest followers follwing his death in 1998. Indeed, his books have been considered academic frauds since the mid 1980s but he remains a very popular new age figure or guru to many. I tried to strike a balance in the article. I would welcome input. I did tag this article with our project name because he referred to himself as a sorcerer and his philopshy as a method of magic.LiPollis 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations

I have been working on a number of articles related to this conspiracy theory and I would welcome input or a rating of the articles I have been trying to beef up such as: Ralph Rene, Bill Kaysing and then main article itself, Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. Thanks. LiPollis 19:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Directory

It this wikiproject listed in any of those sections? i could not find it (:O) -Nima Baghaei 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We've been officially classed under 'philosophy and religion'. --InShaneee 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Tsarion

This paranormal WikiProkect article is in danger of being deleted. Please cast your vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Tsarion. Thank you. -Eep² 09:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean the article is up for deletion, not our project. This is one of the most active projects I know ofLiPollis 12:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, sorry for the miswording; I added "article". Thanks. -Eep² 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Ufologists

I like this article alot and have spent some time on it, but I have only one complaint, there are to many people with no references showing they are Ufologist and also many of them are just red links (meaning no article on them). I have added Ufologist to the list who have articles and good references, but this article just has some other people I just dont know anything about... should we just remove unsourced material that have no articles on the person? (:O) -Nima Baghaei 18:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, these types of lists can become problematic, mainly because they become vulnerable to deletion. I'd suggest doing what The Kinslayer did on the List of allegedly haunted locations page. Move all unreferenced individuals to a "deleted content" sub-page. That way if someone finds a reference they can re-add them to the main list without having to sift through a ton of previous page versions.

It seems like none of the individuals have in-line references on the list page itself. I'd suggest adding them wherever they are applicable. You could start off with the most prominent people in this field. Let me know if you'd like me to help you with that. I'd also suggest removing any "red links" and just emboldening those names. Links can be added later once the individual articles have been started. Hope this helps. --Careax 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

good idea, i will do that! (:O) -Nima Baghaei 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Done ... finished cleaning it up (:O) -Nima Baghaei 20:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Template protection

shouldnt these templates be protected using some form of sprotect given the number of articles they are used on? if some nonregistered user came in and edited one of them, lots of pages using those templates may be damaged (houston we got a problem, if you catch my drift hehe) (:O) -Nima Baghaei 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Template generally aren't protected, and protection generally isn't granted unless there has been several instances of vandalism.

perfectblue 08:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

these are high priority templates though given the number of articles that use them, just a thought (:O) -Nima Baghaei 15:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fairy Mounds

just found this article, maybe of some interest (:O) -Nima Baghaei 15:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Teslascope deleteion?

ok someone just came around and asked that this article be deleted... the old version of the article was written by someone else and lacked sources so I went ahead and re-wrote the article and added great references (i mean come on who would like that time magazine and scientific america reference!) ... so anways what do you all think we can do about? (:O) -Nima Baghaei 20:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

They used {{db-repost}}, which isn't a valid speedy reason as the old deletion was a speedy. {{db-repost}} is only for articles deleted by AFD. I've removed the speedy and your {{hangon}}. If they want it deleted they can send it to AFD, but I think it stands a good chance of survival as it's quite a good stub. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WOw! very cool! (:O) -Nima Baghaei 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration on the paranormal

There is an Arbitration request which may decide the future of most of the paranormal articles here. This may be highly important. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This project (WikiProject Paranormal) has been introduced in the Arbitration request, so if you have an opinion about this project, you might want to at least check it out.

--Nealparr 23:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

sigh... it's a sad day when ArbCom is used to push one side of a debate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Topics in ufology

well i created and have been really updating this article, problem is someone other does not agree that some of these topics should be listed in that article, so I have gone ahead and provided for those questionable topics they have removed but I put back into the article... what is everyone elses take in the matter and any suggestions on how we can solve this? (:O) -Nima Baghaei 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

KAZ 11

Right here and now, today. --Chr.K. 00:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I spotted the story about a day ago on a British website. Will do a page on it.

perfectblue 12:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Page now in place, see Kaz 11. Please watch for in case of skeptical AfD. They seem particularly irksome right now. Spring fever maybe?

perfectblue 14:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Megalith

Just a note, this has been removed several times by User:ScienceApologist removed the project note @ top ] here @ Talk:Megalith. J. D. Redding 00:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Accusations?

Someone may find it interesting, the RfA @ Paranormal and Pjacobi statement @ 18:51 on 21 April 2007. J. D. Redding 00:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

An Arbitration case opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Please look at: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. Please look at: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop.

J. D. Redding 01:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded my observations and judgement at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. I already stated it there, but will further clarify, that I'm neither worried by the existence of this project per se, nor by all participants, but only by an abuse by some project members. --Pjacobi 12:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your analysis Pjacobi. This project was not always so strident in its advocacy. There were times in the past when it strove toward increasing coverage of the paranormal (an admirable goal that leaves the whole question of neutrality up to the editors at the individual pages). I think that the reappearance of User:Reddi at this project is particularly disturbing. He obviously sees this place as the last best hope for continuing to push a pseudoscientific perspective at Misplaced Pages. I hope that concerned members do not let this happen. --ScienceApologist 14:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your strong-arm tactics have sure done a good job of driving well-meaning contributers out of this project. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For example? --ScienceApologist 22:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter... me pointing it out isn't going to make a difference either way. You are already convinced I'm just some asshole who doesn't know what I'm talking about. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

All of you, take this to the Arbitration page. And anyway, this Arb isn't about this project, it's about a user's conduct, and I, for one, will not watch this degenerate into some sort of inter-project mudslinging match. Limit your comments to the matter at hand, and make them in the proper forum. --InShaneee 04:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be turning into a debate about this project. My own user conduct can only be dealt with in that context (unless I'm let off completely). So you may be right, but don't be sure it won't have influence on the whole project. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove User:ScienceApologist from participant list?

Are there three users or more that would express a concern with his presence on the member list? If there is a Consensus to remove him, then he should be removed. J. D. Redding 01:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoever removed your name from the participation list of another WikiProject did so without authority. WikiProjects have open membership and cannot remove their volunteer participants. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Why even fight the battle? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is a method to remove him/her, I support it. His/her primary contribution to Project Paranormal is to delete content en-mass and then to issue a blanket statement like "POV Pushing" without offering any further explanation, and to dispute citations. This more destructive than constructive. He/She isn't an asset.

perfectblue 13:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, there is none. This is not a Country Club; even a user who does nothing but edit articles on Fischer Price toys can call themselves a member of Wikiproject Paranormal if they so choose. --InShaneee 13:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK then. How about we pass an informal motion that SA's are more destructive than constructive which we can point towards in any dispute to show that we have been concerned about him/her for some time? - perfectblue 14:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with InShaneee, so I like the informal motion idea a lot more. --Careax 15:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, few people edit paranormal articles more then SA.:) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Quantity over quality. Anybody who tries to address "Weight" by deleting one side of the argument rather than adding to the other generally isn't considered to be a constructive contributor. That's like addressing the black-white education divide by going round schools in white neighborhoods and telling students to slack off more when you should be going round schools in black neighborhoods and introducing them to some good role models who encourage them to stay in school. Just look how many of his/her edits are simply reverts, or double reverts (reverting something of his back that somebody else has previously reverted).

perfectblue 08:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If a consensus can be reached, I would suggest that the Project's founder/Leader consider placing a carefully worded caution on the User's talkpage stating:

Many members of our project (insert project name and link) have found your sweeping edits to paranormal topics to be unconstructive and damaging. Your postion as a Skeptic is well-known and we don't discriminate against project members for simply being skeptical. Our Project has several outspoken Skeptics and we welcome them all. However, you appear to be editing paranormal articles with the goal of tipping the content towards a skeptical viewpoint without engaging in constructive dialogue with other editors. Other members have been discouraged by the dismissive tone you take with them when they ask you to slow down and discuss such changes. We urge you to re-read the following policy pages: WP:CIV and WP:NPOV as well as the Misplaced Pages article Pseudoskepticism. Please remember that topics such as those under our project border on personal belief, religious views, spirituality and other subjects which are not easily defined in terms of science. Some of us find Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould's concept of Non-Overlapping Magisteria as useful when considering how best to edit such topics. We sincerely wish to continue to work with you and ask that you consider the spirit of wikipedian cooperation when editing articles in the future.

If there is anything resembling a "vote" to push forward this "legislation" (namely that if he continues with these kinds of POV matters, he should get proverbially whapped once with a mallet), I am definitely in favor. --Chr.K. 07:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that polite enough and sufficiently specific? Having a caution on a talk page serves both as a notice to the editor in question and to other editors visiting that talk page. There is some chatter on the net in skeptical forums and bbs that encourages other skeptics to use wikipedia's rules "against the wackjobs" writing articles on paranormal subjects, so we have to take it into account that some users are being egged on by other more activist psuedoskeptics to adopt an obstructionist method of editing. There are even lists and explanations of how to use Wiki Policy to argue, overwhelm and outlast people trying to adit paranormal topics to be POV in favor of the paranormal or just NPOV. It is our job to remain welcoming but to ask editors following such instructions or appearing to follow them to re-read certain policies and to reconsider their editing approach.LiPollis 09:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Granada Forum: another article in danger of deleting

I think this should be part of the Paranormal WikiProject since The Granada Forum hosts many speakers in the paranormal community. Please consider giving your thoughts about the article's inclusion in Misplaced Pages on its talk page. Thanks. -Eep² 21:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Bili Ape

I just put the CryptoZoology and Paranormal project tags on this article since it is listed as a Cryptid on the list of cryptids. Interested porject members should take a look. There's some good infomation a National Geographic article from 2003 which is listed in the external link section. Here's a link to the article for your convenience. Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps or New Species? The article could use some cleaning up and referencing.LiPollis 11:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Cathy O'Brien nominated for deletion (again)

I think this article falls under the paranormal project (along with The Granada Forum, Michael Tsarion, and other conspiracy theorists). The article has already been nominated for deletion before but is up again for a second nomination, unfortnately. Any support for it? Thanks. -Eep² 04:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the page and added about 5 separate third party sources to it which should be more than enough to throw out any "primary source" AfD arguments. The page needs to be diverted away from the sex claims and towards her claims of mind control. The sex claims are only suitable for a gutter tabloid, whereas her claims of mind control and government conspiracy could make an interesting case study in belief in this kind of thing.

I suggest that somebody should add the mechanics of how she claims to have been controlled and the non sex stuff that she claims that she was involved in.

perfectblue 12:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

At least one of those sources doesn't even mention the person. The sources were removed per the talk page on that article. Please do not do that again as it is representative of gaming the system. --ScienceApologist 12:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Everybody gather round, the moment that you've been waiting for. This is where SA gets served.

The author discusses a conversation that he had about her on page 34. Of course, if you find this discussion to be too brief or not relevant. Here is Chapter and verse, from each of the books. I've not typed everything as I'm not your personal servant, just enough to show you that every book that I cited directly referenced her.

Thomas Cyberculture Counterconspiracy, please turn to page 34, the third paragraph under the heading "Alien Sex Majic" where the narrator discusses a disagreement that he had with another individual concerning O'Brien's relevance to Project Monarch. ..Cannon believes that Obrien and her partner, Mark Phillips, are frauds who use details about a real mind-control program called Operation Monarch to embellish a dog-and-pony show..

Versluis The New Inquisitions: heretic-hunting and the intellectual origins of modern totalitarianism, Page 173 then there is the experiences of Cathy O'Brien, mind control slave to the United States Government for more than 25 years in her astonishing book Trance Formation of America written with Mark Phillips. She was sexually abused as a child and as an adult by a stream of famous people named in her book. Among them Bill Clinton (FYI, the author is discussing "Conspiracy websites", this isn't Versluis' view. Versluis is discussing the alledged conspiracy and people whom believe it to be true. Versluis is highly skeptical and considers it garbage as you will see if you read on.

De Young, The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic, Page 235, Michigan native Cathy O'Brien who described how she was brainwashed by a secret government mind control project into having sex with then First Lady Hilary Clinton, former President Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Gerald Ford, the latter of whom, a fellow Michigainina, she referred to as "the Neighborhood porn King". De Young is critical and not a believer, she is discussing this as part of the "abuse panic".

Toropov The Complete Idiot's Guide to Urban Legends, Page 221, The story, which surfaces in an intriguing volume entitled Trance Formation of America (Cathy O'Brien, Reality Marketing Incorporated, 1995), is also considered in detail and discussed as if it were Gospel truth on several strange websites .......

one of the places others fear to tread is the books sweeping contention that its author was subjected to "the mind control operation known as operation monarch" and "was used as a sex slave to pander to the bizarre sexual desires of big name politicians". the roster of politicos supposedly involved in this....... Toropov is discussing her in the context of CIA brainwashing and sex abuse myths. Toropov is approaching this from a skeptical perspective.

Barkun A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America Page 76 The limitations of evidence concerning CIA activities during the cold war have encouraged the extension of mind control litrature into areas for which there is no substantiation. The most sensational of these tales revolves around Project Monarch, a supposed CIA program known only through the revelations of a purported victim, Cathy O'Brien. Under hypnosis preformed by her deprogrammer husband Mark Phillips, O'Brien allegedly recovered memories of her training as a sex slave and drugs courier for the CIA, during which time, she reports, she was sexually abused by a who's who of American public life. Source is discussing mind control conspiracies and propensity for Americans to believe them or to generate urban myths about them. Source takes the skeptical perspective.

I notice that you deleted my citation at 8.48AM, there is absolutely no way that you could have found a public library that stocked this book and was open that early on a Sunday morning, AND gotten back to your home to write about it as you claimed , and I find it extremely unlikely that you just happened to have the book out already. Of course, you might live further west, in which case it would be even earlier in the morning.

Enjoy your humble pie.

perfectblue 14:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This debate is still going on for those who haven't checked in to it for some time. It appears to be neck and neck bwteen keep and delete.LiPollis 17:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul Shockley, Cosmic Awareness et al

OK, Paul Shockley was speedily deleted after I first created it but is now at User:Eep²/Paul Shockley while I research it. It's getting really interesting with ties to Bob Dobbs (Church of the SubGenius) and Carla Rueckert (affiliated with David Wilcock). If anyone else would like to contribute before I recreate it (probably under "Cosmic Awareness" since that's what seems to link everything), go for it. Not to take attention away from the Cathy O'Brien deletion nomination or anything, however; I just wanted to give a heads-up to another article coming down the pike... -Eep² 15:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dobbs deletion review

Check Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_30#.5B.5BBob_Dobbs.5D.5D for this article's review. He has ties to Paul Shockley, David Worcester, Ralph Duby, and many others. Even if his claims are false, his notability is still there, in my opinion. -Eep² 03:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

George Adamski for Misplaced Pages:Good articles nomination

well I wanted to nominate George Adamski as a Misplaced Pages:Good articles, so I have been cleaning the article up these past few days. I have done my best, and now I was hoping those interested would help clean up as necessary also so we can get it passed as a good article (:O) -Nima Baghaei 15:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

ok i nominated it, i hope it passes! (:O) -Nima Baghaei 14:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Pleiadeans

Pleiadeans, just started this article plus some references, some maybe interested in it (:O) -Nima Baghaei 19:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that it is best to reserve "allege" for situations where an allegation was made, such as when Doyle alleged that Houdini was psychic. Allege has a pejoratives air and doesn't go down well with everybody here (It's been misused before) so it's best to use Say or Said etc when a non accusational claim is made.

perfectblue 20:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

i see what you mean, sounds good (:O) -Nima Baghaei 20:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded this page quite a bit to include an overview of who first came up with the idea and how it evolved, and added several cites from the mainstream perspective.

perfectblue 12:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

very nice (:O) -Nima Baghaei 14:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

I've seen it spelt "Pleiadian" quite a bit. Will add a redirect or something.

perfectblue 08:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

sounds good to me (:O) -Nima Baghaei 14:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Andromedans (extraterrestrial)

Andromedans (extraterrestrial), just started this article plus some references, some maybe interested in it (:O) -Nima Baghaei 23:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be good to add what other channelled entities say about these purported extraterrestrials, if channelling is considered canon/valid. For example, Cosmic Awareness (work in-progress) has mentioned the Pleiadians, Andromedans, Sirians, Vegans (no, not the extreme vegetarian kind), Lyrians, Arcturians, reptilians/reptoids, etc. Do a search on its newsletter's master index (Revelations of Awareness; ROA) for more info. Also, Galactic Overview from various ROA newsletters. -Eep² 05:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

More attacks

SA is attacking Anomalistics and won't let it be described as a scientific study even though I've sourced it to mainstream sources stating that it is. Some help finding set in stone cites would be appreciated. We really need to knock this pesudosceptic POV pushing on the head by putting together as strong a set of indisputable mainstream sources as we can.

For some unfathomable reason he/she also insists on moving the infobox to the bottom of the page. I consider the last part of which to be disruptive vandalism for the purpose of the 3rr rule, does anybody else agree.

perfectblue 13:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I would just continue to source it until it's "officially" challenged (deletion nomination, etc). -Eep² 15:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that we need to make an extra effort to bullet proof our pages from now on. Don't just source them, sources them source them to such an extent that any admin can tell by a mere glance that everything is as we say it is.

perfectblue 15:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, infoboxes do belong at the top of pages. --InShaneee 15:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that I've solved the infobox problem. He/she was using an older browser that wasn't handling the code properly leading him/her to believe that the infobox was a full width box. I think that I've corrected the problem. This is one of the many perils of having so many browsers and browser version around.

perfectblue 15:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee , as our fearless leader and as someone with a history of being diplomatic, is there anyway that you could have a private word with individuals who have demonstrated an antagonism towards this project? it's become severely disruptive to our effrots. We can't write new articles or impprove existing ones if all our edit time is used up restoring blanked text and responding to attack-oriented comments on talk pages which cite wikipedia policy in a gaming the system sort of way. SA isn't the only one doing this but is the most active.LiPollis 16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, it's a pain. I sometimes have to take more time defending an edit that making it. In this case I'm trying actually trying to define a term as it was meant to be used by the man whom coined it, but SA keeps twisting it to be what skeptics think of what it is describing, which is completely getting away from the whole point of the term in the first place.

perfectblue 17:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What is a real pain are when people try to masquerade as science that which is not. --ScienceApologist 17:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Even worse when they try to exclude subjects from it that have no rational reason NOT to be included. Ever heard of the Sourcebook Project? It was based on the methodology used by Charles Fort, patron saint of the open-minded. Also, pick up a copy of UFOs and the National Security State, by Richard M. Dolan, to show an example of extremely scholarly anomalistic history. --Chr.K. 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That one's between you and Davkal. Me, I'm trying to include an accurate definition of a term as it was coined to mean. regardless of what you personally think of the subject, the term MUST be defined literally.

How would you feel if somebody went along to Scientific skeptic and changed the definition to something that varied significantly from what the man who invented the term meant for it to be?

perfectblue 18:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this fistfight be occuring at Talk:Anomalistics? ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 18:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fists? this is handbags at dawn. Either way, I started this thread to request support in finding strong citations for a particular page that is under threat. A project is exactly the right place to ask for this sort of assistance.

perfectblue 19:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Teslascope

well there is an issue with "further reading" and the usage of Template:WikiProject Paranormal in the talk page, any comments on the talk page on this would be wonderful (:O) -Nima Baghaei 21:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

it seems to be the word paranormal that raises a stink wherever it goes. It really does invoke an image of ouija boards and suchlike. forteana would be much better, IMO. Totnesmartin 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Photon Belt

This is yet another article that was deleted as "nonnotable bollocks". Some discussion: Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk_archive/Science/2006_July_14#Photon_Belt. I will be proposing a deletion review on it, like I did with Bob Dobbs but I can only take so much on at one time. The photon belt is mentioned extensively by Cosmic Awareness and other chanelled entities. Other sources to research/investigate: , (which claims "The photon belt was described in the book You Are Becoming A Galactic Human by Virginia Essene and Sheldon Nidle, where it is presented as 'Channeled information'." and sources the old Misplaced Pages article (the only one I could get on Internet Archive is from December 15, 2005 but it doesn't have this information). -Eep² 07:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

On closer review of the Crystalinks article referenced above, I think the entire indented portion was the Misplaced Pages article (from Jun 2006):

The Photon Belt is a belief largely linked to some parts of the new age movement that a band of photons is going to collide with the earth and cause massive failure of electrical equipment.

There are a number of related beliefs involving the belt but they have a few common elements. The first is that earth orbits the Pleiades cluster. This is not the case. The second is that a belt of photons also orbits the cluster. No such belt has been observed (and it is hard to see how one could exist within the current understanding of the universe). The third is that earth is going to collide with this belt. A number of predictions have been made as to the date of this collision, so far none have been correct.

The first appearance of the idea appears to have been in an Australian UFO magazine in 1981. It gained in popularity after it was reprinted in the Australian Nexus magazine in February 1991.

Somewhere in the universe there must be a center star(s) which everything spins around. As matter is pulled into this center, photon beams are emitted from the top and bottom poles.

Although our planet is a distance from the center sun and the photon band that encircles it, we will eventually pass through the band. Some people say this will be the end of the world, however this planet has passed through the belt before. Electrons will not flow the same way so electronic devices on the planet will fail. Spiritually it represents a transition point but it is only a temporary window.

The photon belt was described in the book "You Are Becoming A Galactic Human" by Virginia Essene and Sheldon Nidle, where it is presented as "Channeled information".

Unfortunately, the page has no references other than the deleted Misplaced Pages article. I find it annoying that deleted pages are inaccessible to non-admins for viewing!

More sources: Noel Huntley (not this one), this one: PhD (Amazon.com books by, or references to, him), and Amazon.com "photon belt" references.

I think one way to get an article about some esoteric/fringe idea/theory to remain on Misplaced Pages may be to first establish the credentials of the authors--create their pages and works, link them to existing ideas/theories/whatever, and then bring in their more esoteric/fringe theories/beliefs--which may or may not need its own article (it does if multiple authors refer to it, like hollow earth). -Eep² 09:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Found the SkepticWiki: Photon Belt article which looks like the Crystalinks one. Wikt:toroid also mentions the photon belt (I added the links):

1994: The photon belt, a huge torroid shaped object composed of photon light particles, was first discovered by your scientists in 1961 near the vicinity of the Pleiades by satellite instrumentation. — You are Becoming a Galactic Human, by Virginia Essene and Sheldon Nidel, ISBN 0937147087, pp. 27–28

-Eep² 03:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've started recreating this article at User:Eep²/The Photon Belt if anyone's interested in helping. -Eep² 12:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter Beter deletion nomination

And now Peter Beter (who has links to Cosmic Awareness (in-progress), Bob Dobbs (trying to get it restored), and who has influenced prominent conspiracy theorists of today via his mentioning of robotoids (of who David Icke is a proponent of), is up for deletion nomination. Sheesh. The guy gets Fort Knox opened and some idiots don't think he's notable enough! What's it freakin' take to be notable in Misplaced Pages?? Sheesh... Please comment on it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Peter Beter. -Eep² 10:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does it seem like people are either putting things up for Afd without bothering to check their notability first, or that they are trying to delete as much paranormal/conspiracy content as the can in order to prevent other people from realizing exactly how widespread such belief are?

perfectblue 11:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems a lot of people just gloss/skim over information without really trying to understand all the connections between people, events, and places. Few people seem to be willing to actually do research. Aude made a valiant attempt but still fell short (too left-brain or something). -Eep² 11:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated in many a delete nom - there is a group who honestly feels that deleting any and all of wikipedias articles on what they deem "Fringe" subjects is a good and admirable thing. They seem to feel that merely having the article will promote belief in the subject. Here at this project we have seen a noticeable upswing in such AFDs. It is not sufficient to way in with a "Keep" vote. WE most demand specifics from those who say: Delete as non-notable. Ask them why they feel that way and how did they determine this? it is clear that many delete voters don't even read the articles. I'm all for deleting nonsense articles but when it comes to people nominating articles for deletion in order to advance a particular agenda, be it Materialism, extreme skepticism, atheism etc. it's not helpful. This type of thing would not be permitted if Christians went around nominating for deletion other minor religion articles so why is it permitted with paranormal articles? LiPollis 17:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

From my own personal experience I can tell you that one of the oldest "mind control" tricks that communist governments use to keep their populations in line is to prevent the discussion of any topic that falls outside their ideology in the hope that people will either be so ignorant of the topic that they simply presume that whatever the government says about it is correct (they don't know that there is other discourse or views to be had), other they start to believe that they are the only person in the world who thinks about that topic and they keep silent for fear of ridicule of sanction, or simply because they believe that nobody else will agree with their ideas. - perfectblue 19:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This principle is extremely used in regards to any actual academic discussion of the reality of unidentified intelligently-controlled objects of whatever sort on our planet. Richard M. Dolan wrote a book on that, actually. --Chr.K. 08:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

List of alleged contactees

well it has been nominated for deletion, I figured if anyone wanted to give their two cents that would be great Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_alleged_contactees (:O) -Nima Baghaei 13:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

List of alleged UFO-related government personnel

Same thing here, they want to delete it, give your two cents on it if you want Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_alleged_UFO-related_government_personnel (:O) -Nima Baghaei 14:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There is actually a proper section for this on the project's hompage. It'd be helpful if you would post this kind of thing there too.

perfectblue 16:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

oh thanks for letting me know! (:O) -Nima Baghaei 16:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

COLLABORATE!

The Cottingley Fairies section has been the "Project Collaboration" (former, true enough) for going on half a year now. We need something new, Now. --Chr.K. 08:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, there's been little support for the Collab effort since it was voted in. I'm probably just going to mark the Collab page as 'temporarily inactive' if there's no real activity at the end of this month. --InShaneee 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

added some References if anyone wanted to use them in the article (:O) -Nima Baghaei 18:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Loch Ness Monster anagram

I'm trying to find a source for the origin of the joke anagram "Monster Hoax by sir Peter S" - unfortunately my books don't mention it, and websites either name "the London papers" or Scottish politician Nicholas Fairbairn. Any answers? Totnesmartin 12:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried searching Google Books? I have been finding that very helpful lately in sourcing articles and claims within articles.LiPollis 01:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I found this in the New York Times archive:

"London, Dec. 18 (Reuters) - A Scottish member of Parliament has discovered an anagram for Nessiteras rhombopteryx, the name applied to the fabled Loch Ness Monster by a United States researcher, Robert Rines and a leading British naturalist, Sir Peter Scott.

Nicholas Fairbairn, the MP, announced the anagram in a letter to The Times: 'Monster hoax by Sir Peter S.'

Sir Peter, a long-time believer in the monster, said last month that its existence was proved by underwater photographs. Others remain skeptical." ("Loch Ness Monster Shown a Hoax by Another Name." New York Times 19 December 1975. p. 78.)

Unfortunately, I don't have immediate access to the Times of London. Hopefully, though, this is enough to point you in the right direction. Zagalejo 02:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

sheesh

Well, seems the powers that be are trying to get me blocked from Misplaced Pages, and people like User:Radiant keep reverting my comments on vote pages (and also removed the vote symbols I put on the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paranormal page. I hate this kind of oppression. I know I haven't been editing paranormal-related articles very long, but any support at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Eep would be appreciated. Thanks... -Eep² 06:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes the Wikinquisition is biased and will censor honest contributors. I don't have a stable access .. but I will try to look around and I will add my opinion when I can. J. D. Redding 23:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate venue for this discussion. --InShaneee 15:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:RationalSkepticismTasks

The "skeptics", and I use that term loosely, seem to be interested in certain articles. Just a note. J. D. Redding 22:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

...As are we. Let's not turn this into a war. --InShaneee 15:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are concerned, simply add those articles to your watchlist. The list can be helpful if you look at it that way. Also, the articles listed do need watching over from both projects. incidentally, I am a member of both projects as are a number of members here.LiPollis 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiEssay? Wikinquisition

The word "Wikinquisition" can describe the negative actions associated with the inquisition of various RfCs and other judgment of "heresy" or "pseudoscience" by the powers that be. It could address points made by Robert Anton Wilson's book The New Inquisition, also. Template:Essay could be put at the top of it. It can go along with the other Misplaced Pages essays ... any thought?

J. D. Redding 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to invent new terms. Within skepticism itself, there already exists a suitable term for overzealous applicagtion of skepticism to the point of dogma, it is Pseudoskepticism. Naturally, pseudoskeptics or skeptics acting in a pseudoskeptical manner will not usually see themselves as being or doing such. People like that are ideologues. Just let it go and concentrtate on imporving articles and providing good references. That is the best way to combat deletionists. If a topic is truly notable, make sure it is shown to be just that.LiPollis 11:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Paraphysics

At 08:02 on 10 May 2007, ScienceApologist redirected the Paraphysics article with the comment "you've got to be kidding me." Please Watch this page. J. D. Redding 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on the redirect can be had at Talk:Paraphysics. --ScienceApologist 15:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not do this unilaterally. Please let the discussion take place on the talk page. Or alternatively place a {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tag on the pages. J. D. Redding 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see you offering any discussion points. Pretending to have a discussion is not an excuse for reverting.--ScienceApologist 15:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist 4th revert and Non-Cooperation : paraphysics

I will be notifying someone about this. J. D. Redding

You will note that there have not been 4 reverts. --ScienceApologist 15:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes today there was. J. D. Redding 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

10:41, 10 May 2007 ScienceApologist
10:32, 10 May 2007 ScienceApologist
10:28, 10 May 2007 ScienceApologist
08:02, 10 May 2007 ScienceApologist (with comment "you've got to be kidding me".)

J. D. Redding 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I count three reverts. I don't see how the initial redirection would count as a revert, what do you count as the fourth? AfD may be an option for this article. Which version is the 8:02 a revert to? --Minderbinder 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

revert to a redirect and three to a keep the redirect. J. D. Redding 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The first edit is not a revert. --ScienceApologist 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

if he want to move the article to the place he redirected .. he should put in a mergeto and a mergefrom tag on the appropriate pages. J. D. Redding 15:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is only appropriate when there is content worth keeping. The content was all in the form of weak definitional constraints: not encyclopedic. This was pointed out on the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's a revert to a redirect, which earlier version of the page was a redirect? If there isn't one, it wasn't a revert. --Minderbinder 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"When there is content worth keeping." This is what is known in friendly circles as a BS line. --Chr.K. 12:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't bring issues such as disruptive editing, edit warring, and so on, here. Go first to the user's talk page, then seek an administrator, preferably on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). --Tony Sidaway 16:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... this project is not part of the WP:DR process. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Paranormal-stub

can we subcategorize this in the Category:UFOs so its easy to access for those who want to know which stub to use for UFO articles but are not sure which stub template to use? I tried categorizing it before but it got reverted (:O) -Nima Baghaei 13:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, category:UFOs is already under category:paranormal and you might be able to get away with mentioning the paranormal stub in category:UFOs, but that category has other parent categories that the template could be stubbed under (but I can't find any other stubs categorized in those parent categories). -Eep² 14:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD Bot

I'd like to put in a request for a custom bot that can watch pages with our tag and automatically notify us if they are put up for Afd so that we don't have to do it manually any more. Does anybody know of a good bot-developer whom could build it for us?

perfectblue 08:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a definite need for these as our tagged articles seem to be singled out for deletion in as loosely organized manner. By the time we figure it out, a number of deletionists have weighed in citing wikipolicy but without specifics as to how the article violates them. WE then have to prove a negative, that the article DOESN'T violate the cited policies. It would be better if we could be there at the beginning of the debate for several reasons, not the least of which is so we may see if there is an unfair pattern in the nominations.LiPollis 01:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

problem with overlap of to do list

(I use netscape FYI.) When I see this page, the to do list significantly overlaps the box next to it.LiPollis 01:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hands Resist Him the eBay Haunted Painting

I finally got around to doing something I've wanted to do for a long time: I have recently expanded this article substantially but I suck at the new citation format. I don't know why I just don't get it, but I don't. I used a slightly older inline cite format so the info is all there. I just need an editor who is not citation-challenged as I am to come along after me and maybe spiff them up a bit. My goal is to get something from the article listed on the front page under DYK. Articles that have been recently substantially expanded are eligible. I know it's a short article but I feel it's pretty interesting. Any suggestions as to which fact should be nominated? LiPollis 11:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories: