User talk:Dreadstar/Archive02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive - 02 (November 2006 to July 2007)

Contents 1 Removed POV wording 2 Natasha Demkina 3 Please use substition on warning and welcome messages 4 Demkina 5 Wizard (fantasy) 6 Not to be confused with ESPN 7 Psychic? 8 User:Eloquence 9 3RR psychic 10 Wikiquette and Verifiability 11 Natasha Demkina 12 Million $ challenge 13 OK 14 Demkina WP:NOR 15 Personal question 16 Noclevername 17 Paranormal NPOV principle 18 License tagging for Image:Probe scanner.jpg 19 Medium 20 Self-abducting barnstar 21 Thanks for your note on my talk page 22 ESP page 23 Re: EVP 24 Guideline on Paranormal 25 Wizard (fantasy) 26 Deletion 27 Psychic 28 EVP 29 Medium/Channeller 30 Well 31 Re: Friendly suggestion 32 Kazuba 33 EVP 34 whatever 35 Just that tiny part. Nothing else 36 Very strange, but he's beginning to grow on me 37 Natasha Demkina 38 Re: Totally-Disputed Template 39 If only. 40 Demkina and the Center 41 Award 42 I accept your offer of help! 43 Request for mediation for John Edward 44 Request for Mediation 45 No worries 46 The RfC on Cult 47 rap disambizzle 48 Link 49 Oddball barnstar! 50 Dreadlocke 51 Barnstar 52 Thanks for your advice 53 Re: Uncivil 54 EVP new version 55 undiscussed moves 56 SPR info that may interest you 57 Magician (fantasy) 58 Play 59 EVP 60 Now you know why 61 Edward 62 Psychic article debate 63 Irrefutable 64 User notice: temporary 3RR block 65 Regarding reversions[4] made on February 23, 2007 to John Edward 66 Unfair block 66.1 More detail from Dreadlocke 67 JE pic 68 John Edward 69 Hello 70 Psychic 71 Edward 72 Milo 73 Archiving 74 Mediumship 75 Purported 76 Recent attacks 77 New category name? 78 Image 79 Milo 80 Aware? 81 Tea 82 Arbcom 83 WikiProject Confidence Tricks 84 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Crossingover FCover.jpg)

Removed POV wording

Hi, in this edit, you removed the word 'scathing' from a critism, describing it as "POV wording". I have no comment on the The Afterlife Experiments, so I'm not entering the debate over there, but simply to voice my opinion that the word 'scathing' is itself not inherently point-of-view. One party in a contested topic could, for example, write a paper containing the words "X's level of scholarship is extremely poor... his paper on Y contains 24 factual errors and 10 logical fallacies... the only good parts of the paper were plagarised from Z...", etc. It would be perfectly correct to describe such severe critism as 'scathing'—in fact, dictionary.com gives the primary definition of 'scathe' as "to attack with severe critism"—though whether or not such criticism should be represented as a notable view is of course another matter. Regards, — BillC ^talk 18:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Natasha Demkina

Hey, no peeking

perfectblue 07:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please use substition on warning and welcome messages

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

This includes all user warning messages. Frankly, however, I think that Gwernol does need this warning. That is an admin-level account. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Demkina

I'm having a few problems with the criticism section of the Demkina draft which is drifting against her. Do you have any other sources of criticism of the New York experiments that I could use to even it out?

At the moment all I have is the criticism of the use of a high Bayes factor, Demkina's criticism about how she was treated, and some accusations that she cheated by turning up early and observing the patients and that she used a cell phone during the experiments (which I haven't included right now).

Could you also have a quick look and see if I am using Bayesian inference correctly, as I'm not certain that I know what it is.

perfectblue 08:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wizard (fantasy)

The latest act appears to be carefully detaching the history of "Wizard (fantasy)" from the actual article/redirect. As this looks to me to violate the spirit of the discusion about deletion, it would appear that we should invoke higher powers. (Not to mention leaving the queasy question of why it is so important that you not be able to get to "Wizard (fantasy)" history from "Magicians in fantasy".) Goldfritha 18:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I done it. About this detaching of history. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wizard (fantasy). Goldfritha 04:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I saw the above discussion, I just decided to let it be worked out there. --InShaneee 21:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a new one up elsewhere: WP:AN#Request_for_advice. --InShaneee 21:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You can make your request there, yes, and I will look at it, but I think review by a wider scope is needed here. If you really think it's that different from j's topic, go ahead and start a new thread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by InShaneee (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Not to be confused with ESPN

Pretty funny (-:>

Check out here "More recent studies indicate that the vast majority of scientists are skeptical of ESP[22], but belief in ESP persists among the general public[23]."

Add your pet peeve here and help me edit. Maybe it can turn into something which can be shown to scientistists and maybe save some time arguing?

......Well, the page is called Extra-sensory perception, not ESP. So, that's that.

He blanked his talk page. Is that considered vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 20:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Psychic?

You mean the Psychic article? I've made some major changes really fast, we'll see what sticks. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Say, I really like your new intro to Psychic! I think it addresses both sides (although the pseudo-skepitcs won't be happy until it says "All psychics are frauds and there's no such thing..." Anyway, I hope your version sticks! I'll work to make it so. I'm tired of arguing over a single word, you actually did what I've been suggesting and added detailed content! That's the way to go, but some of these editors just want to be lazy and throw in a biased, loaded WP:WTA. Good job! Dreadlocke ☥ 02:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (: ! Did you take a look at the essay on my user page? I really have no idea whether it is any good or whether it would be usefull, but if we could make it good, it might save a lot of time and argument and having to go over the same points with pseudo-skepitcs again and again. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Eloquence

Honestly, I'd consider it 3 reverts. Generally, the 3RR covers exact reverts, but it also covers edits which are substantially reverts, i.e. where one or two words are changed over and over again. And in this case, Eloquence was changing the same words over and over again. His edits were 98% the same. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR psychic

Thanks for the heads-up. I have made substantial changes each time, I think, so he'd have a hard time proving it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 01:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Wikiquette and Verifiability

Hello Dreadlocke. I do not believe my edits were a breech of Wikiquette. Rather, they were in accordance with WP:V. Have a good day. Nick Graves 17:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Natasha Demkina

I was hoping to add the draft it more or less in full, but I'm more than open to making modifications.

perfectblue 07:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Million $ challenge

Hi,

I didn't bother to read this carefully, but basically I think it is now only going to be for people who have scientists behind them or have had a lot of press. So, one might want to mention the prize, but it is now formally a ploy to embarrass high profile psychics, and no longer something that can be thrown in the face of just any psychic. So maybe I should just have revised that paragraph, but I thought I'd just take it out and see what happened.

Here's a quote: "The foundation will launch this public-shaming initiative with a list of four targets, including self-proclaimed medium John Edward, and daytime talk show darling Sylvia Browne, who claims she can tell the future and see angels." What do you think? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK

No that's fine. Still, "acts" is pretty good, because it is equally objectionable to both believers and skeptics, if they choose to interpret it to mean something besides "hosts".

I accidentally put back in the ESPN thing when removing that horrid summary edit.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

He is best known as the host and psychic medium on his shows...

"Performs" isn't really perfect, it's just the best word of its type if you have to use one. It could be interpreted as "actually does," ie he truly communicates with the dead, or he is putting on a performance, ie he is a cold reader, "putting on an act". Do you have WordWeb installed? There's a free version.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"I think the real reason for all the skeptical qualifiers is that the folks who think he's a fake only want the article to say that he's a fake."

Yes, of course. There should be a policy on biography pages saying that the person is generally assumed not to be a fake.

"I hope your and perfectblue's essays are able to counter this type of crap eventually."

Never happen. Dreadlocke isn't helping. The fact is, I've seen your posts, you have gone over these same points, or many of them, many times. I put it on the paranormal project talk page -a link, and I hope it was a little funny-, but no one's responded yet. This can't be effective if it ends as essays. It has to be a general consensus of the paranormal project, maybe of Wikipedia policy as well.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've heard of Jimbo before, but I think this might be Wikipedia history which I never bothered to pick up. I really only started a few months ago, and only just edited parapsychology mainly. Is Jimbo who you go to for everything? Ah yes, I found his page. Sounds like this could become policy (:

Really, you like it? Cool. I wasn't totally sure whether it would strike others as funny or not. I've got to go to bed, see you tomorrow. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Demkina WP:NOR

Mathworld is purely being used to WP:V Bayes as being "real Math", therefore it is irrelevant that it doesn't mention Demkina. Equally, the research on Bayes was done by Josephson, who is WP:V and WP:RS, which invalidates any WP:OR claims.

perfectblue 11:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal question

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, but I'd rather keep my email address confidential for now. It's nothing personal, I just don't know you.

I can however tell you that I miss the food from my province, and the mountains, but not the silly government officials who spy on you, and that Chinatown is a good approximation of what Shanghai used to be like before they pulled half of it down and started building skyscrapers and expressways everywhere.

perfectblue 14:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Noclevername

I wish to clarify an important point and apologize for a seeming miscommunication. It has been brought to my attention that the sentence that you quoted on my talk page could be interpreted as a personal remark (though I am not certain why you keep referring to it as a personal attack). It was not intended in either way; "defensive" was in reference to the tone and content of your posts on the Talk:Psychic page, and I am sorry if you interpreted it as personal. I admit, my word choice may have made my meaning unclear. My remarks on said page have either been directed at the content of the article, or in response to suggestions about the article's content. I hope that this clears up matters and that in the future you will assume good faith. For my part, I will try to be more careful and explain my meaning more clearly.

In hopes that we can both continue to contribute to Wikipedia, Noclevername 06:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Dreadlocke. It's always better to discuss these things and clear the air than to exchange heated words. I'm glad we could work things out, and hope that any future discussions will be amicable. --- Noclevername 08:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! Just don't talk about me!! (Well, unless it's to say how great I am or something...LOL!) Dreadlocke ☥ 08:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noclevername"

Okay, you're GREAT! Actually, I wasn't talking about you in my posts (although re-reading them now I can see why it looked that way, I was a bit brusque), I'm just a stickler for solid data, I guess I got huffy when I saw so many unsupported statements on that page (I'm a true Skeptic; I've never said Psi isn't real, just that there's not enough conclusive evidence to prove it yet). I will try to word things a little more carefully; and for your part, just keep cool and back up your statements with why you think something should be changed or not, and I don't think there should be any further problems. Noclevername 08:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal NPOV principle

Hi,

Thanks for the heads-up on the talk page from Inshannee.

Do you think this would stick?

License tagging for Image:Probe scanner.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Probe scanner.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks orphanbot! It's fixed! Dreadlocke ☥ 05:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Medium

I only looked briefly at your mediumship article but that is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind. I think a lot of it could simply be entered stright into Medium, because when one considers the amount of stuff that could be included the current Medium article is woeful. This, I think, is due to the number of "skeptics" on Wiki who have looked brifly at the Skepdic website, don't want anything included in a a way that doesn't tally with Carroll's view, but don't know anything about the subject so can't write anything. The result being the article gets whittled down to nothing. This is exactly what has been happened on the EVP article. Davkal 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Draining, tell me about it. I'm currently involved in a two-day debate about the peer-review journal of the SPR not being a reliable enough source for even the existence of an experiment reported in its pages, while all the time unbounded skeptical speculations sit in the article without even so much as a source, reputable or otherwise. Anyway, I think it's a pity that all the good work on mediumship has to be hidden away as it were for fear of censorship.

One of the things I was thinking of doing, was in trying to get the paranormal wiki project to set out a set of much more specific guidlines re the sources for paranormal articles. I am fed up with, for example, finding things in peer-review journals only to have those sources rubbished because some skeptic who has had a quick look at Skepdic decides it's not in line with mainstream scientific thinking, or their own take on things, or something. For example, Askolnick wouldn't even allow Brian Josephson to be called a parpsychologist, even though I had a quote saying exactly that from Physics World, because he (askolnick) decided Josephson's research record was not comprehensive enough for that. I think it would be good to get much mor specific guidlines because at the moment it just seems like arguing round and round in circles at every step of every article with people whose prejudice against anything even paranormal sounding leads them to more and more bizarre arguments. I don't know.Davkal 03:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-abducting barnstar

• causes issues...

Thanks for your note on my talk page

I'm glad that you and User:Noclevername seem to putting what I think is primarily - but not necessarily totally - a misunderstanding behind you. I'll admit to not reading all of the postings that the two of you did (as you may have seen, I tried to make it clear on his page that I was just doing a first impression), so I want to make it clear here that it seemed to me more a labeling problem (of what he was doing wrong) than anything else. I agree that the problem could be labeled a personal attack, in the sense that violation of WP:AGF can be seen as automatically triggering WP:NPA, so in no way do I think you were falsely accusing anyone - Noclevername needs to change his approach, and I think it's likely he will, though he may need to be reminded once or (hopefully not) twice about focusing solely on content.

It's been a pleasure doing business with you, albeit briefly. If there is anything I can do in the future, please feel free to drop me a note. In the meantime, you might want to take a look at User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia - you might find it useful. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 14:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

ESP page

[1] I don't think there is anything to be done about the source. The source seems quoted correctly. It's the context... And who knows, I don't know what's correct in this area. Have a good trip Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (: Well, it would be impressive if the The skeptical view of parapsychology and Fraud in parapsychology pages had much of anything on them! The only one with much going for it is Criticism and response in parapsychology. I tried to get Kazuba to do those, but he doesn't want them. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Congress concerns me more than any psychic ever will...;)" Yeah....

Re: EVP

Yeah, strong feelings are the spice of life.. but it can sometimes get in the way of common sense. ---J.S ^(T/C) 05:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Guideline on Paranormal

Hello Dreadlocke, I thought you might be interested in an attempt I have made to come to some kind of consensus on James Randi's inclusion in every paranormal article. I think this would be a first step towards a wider guideline on paranormal issues. Let me know what you think. - Solar 19:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wizard (fantasy)

I put in the request for a move. Goldfritha 03:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I've never been through this process. What is your take? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_and_response_in_parapsychology Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been advised to create a sandbox for the Criticism and response in parapsychology article. It's here, renamed to Controversy in parapsychology. I'm not sure if people want to edit under my user page, or edit the main article. But, if it's decided to edit the sandbox, It would be great to have your input. I won't be editing in the beginning, while I see what format people want to use etc. I'm putting this on several talk pages. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Psychic

Talk:Psychic#Focus Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

EVP

Yes, Tom Butler, who is just back from being banned for COI, tried to get it deleted. I agreed with him, simply because it seems that the article can't present just the facts (for instance, see my recent edits), and skeptics keep weaseling it. It's the most controversial page I've seen, though I'm guessing John Edward was as much or more. I just don't think it's ever going to be fair, in spite WP:FRINGE. At the same time, it's rather a good page. I didn't get to vote on deletion, but it wouldn't have mattered. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Medium/Channeller

Seen this? [2] Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well

I would consider that an honest appraisal of your feelings on Randi, not a personal attack per se. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you feel like they are too strong, you can always edit the comments and tone it down a bit. Or if you think that it's just not worth it, retract them. It's up to you, really and how you think others will view your comments. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Friendly suggestion

I have to go back through my contributions to make sure they have not been reverted by AS openly or by a sockpuppet because of his wikistalking. Notice I edit pages first, he then reverts me. This user should have been blocked a long time ago. KazakhPol 03:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Right now I am just trying to avoid him. The more I edit pages he perceives as his own, the angrier he seems to get. I do not mind ignoring certain pages. There are other pages I can edit. I will keep in mind the point about civility. KazakhPol 04:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba

Kazuba is usually nice. I left him a note on his attack also, maybe I shouldn't since it was yours to respond, but I did. Look at the top of my talk page and see if you see anything different (: User_talk:Martinphi

Yes, I've never been able to get him to really help out, he said his wife (see email) vetoed it. But if you could, he knows the subjects back and forth. Glad you like the pentagram. I faked the paranormal template with CSS code (couldn't tell the difference, could you!). I know there was probably a better and much easier way, but that is a Wiki -code secret hidden from mine eyes. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I responded again to Kazuba User_talk:Kazuba#Dreadlocke Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

EVP

Opinions needed from more editors: Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon#EVP_primarily_as_a_cultural_phenomenon.2C_rather_than_a_scientific_debate Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"I don't think either the popular culture or scientific views should be sacrificed for each other" Yes, that is what I'm trying to say there, and we have another who agrees, so this is working toward consensus... or at least a power block. You're sure right, it's a terrible page for controversy. I'd just as soon delete it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy to have been able to help.  :) BTW, my own opinion on the debate is that both (reliably-sourced) views should be represented, both pro and con, so as to allow readers to make up their own mind on the subject. --Elonka 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

whatever

You know, I think he means well and is trying to be nice. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've sent my mind to Jupiter, so I must have missed that part. Maybe it was the baseball bat strike to my head that I suffered in New York..er, Detroit - RC!... Dreadlocke ☥ 02:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just that tiny part. Nothing else

User:Kazuba 14 Feb 2007

<sigh> Ok, I accept. Thank you. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Very strange, but he's beginning to grow on me

Yeah. I like him. And he is a bit weird. Read his user page. He is actually a great writer, or would be with just a bit of training, but he says he is no good. His is one of the only user pages I know worth reading. OK, I'm really going now. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Natasha Demkina

I really hate it when there are editors who make it their personal mission to push an agenda on certain entries, it ruins the entire community approach, doesn't it. I'll have a look at your draft, but I haven't read up on the topic much so I think that the most that I can do is to go over the wording.

On a personal level, it always rings alarm bells with me when anybody calls any paranormal ability a gift. I guess that it is a cultural thing. There are a lot of implications to that word. The biggest being that a gift must be given, and in order for something to be given there must be a giver.

perfectblue 07:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So that you know in advance, I'm a total skeptic about this case (sorry, but I can't rationalize it with my beliefs on scientific, magical or religious healing), but I will accept that any verifiable claim that was made about her and her abilities can and should be documented (I firmly believe that it is important to document what people believe or what they say happens, even if it is/appears to be wrong).

perfectblue 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on my own draft in my sandbox, its going to use most of the same information that you have, but broken down slightly differently, and without a few details that I think are irrelevant (I'm treating it as an entry on her abilities and claims rather than an entry on her). It should be shorter and a little more acceptable to skeptics, but without having alleged and so-called every other sentence, and having the core of the paranormal belief in it. I'll do some more work on it and you can see what you think.

perfectblue 08:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

To answer your comment on my talk: Yes, actually, it does appear to be :) Now it's just hit-and-runs instead of concentrated insurgency. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Totally-Disputed Template

Hi - thanks for telling me that - I've restored the !votes and changed the result to keep. I just wonder why the person who removed the anon !vote didn't restore the others (even though we're not supposed to remove anon messages). Anyway, thanks :) Martinp23 10:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If only.

I came across the essay WP:TIGERS today and I wish I had done so a long, long time ago. I'm sure you can see why. :) Cheers, - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Demkina and the Center

Well, the opening paragraph is her biography, who she is, why she was famous, and what she is doing now. If it doesn't belong there somebody will need to add a "Where is she now" section on at the end which would be a lot more messy.

It's valid information, it means that even though she was not able to prove her abilities to science, she has entered a known institute to continue research of some nature. Taking it out would make it look like she just gave up and went home.

perfectblue 08:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Award

Thanks very much Dreadlocke, That's a great start to the new year, it's always nice to get an award. Thanks again. - Solar 10:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I accept your offer of help!

Thanks so much, Dreadlock. Yes, it would be really great to have your help. My advocate seemed to give me some good advice early on, but mostly he's been somewhat uncommunicative. Plus, it's been kind of an odd situation to have Sethie's advocate appear in my discussion with my advocate. And my advocate acknowledged he has no experience with Medcom. It will be great to have advice from an experienced editor like yourself.

Where should we communicate?TimidGuy 16:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation for John Edward

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Edward, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. — Elembis 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Edward. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Thanks for the notice, I will be away for the weekend and probably will not be able to participate until next Tuesday, Jan 23. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries

The mediation hasn't actually begun yet, that was just an indication that the MedCom will take on the case. I'll leave a note on the page saying that you'd rather not begin just yet, and that way no Mediator will take the case yet. How's that sound? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that you have been editing quite regularly since you said you were sick. Is it fine by you if we proceed? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The RfC on Cult

Hi Dreadlocke, if you have the time your participation in the RfC at Cult would be most appreciated. Thanks. Tanaats 19:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

rap disambizzle

I've always thought of "rap" and "hip hop" as related but slightly different genres, with rap having more emphasis on the lyrical content and delivery, and hip hop more geared toward the rhythm and beat and whatnot. But I get the feeling my view is neither qualified nor mainstream, so I pretty much shut up about it. That much having been said, I don't really remember what I did last summer, so I'm not sure how it is affected by the change of redirects. I will say this much though: It is generally a bad idea to "fix" redirects that aren't broken, especially if they may need to be "re-fixed" at a later date. It's generally a good idea to take the most conservative possible approach in interpreting what the writer intended to link to. If a link in an article points to something besides a disambiguation page, and to a target that isn't an obvious error, I've learned it's probably best to just leave it alone... simply because semantics can change, articles can be split, redirects can be replaced with more specific articles, etc. This probably doesn't answer your question, but I'm not really sure what you were asking. Let me know if you'd like more advice, or if I've said too much. —freak(talk) 21:45, Feb. 4, 2007 (UTC)

Link

Talk:Criticism_and_response_in_parapsychology

That article you linked me to is great, now that I had the time to read it. I hope we can find some better polls that say more about how scientists in general, when polled anonymously view psi. I suspect the one cited on the NAS in the ESP article was not private, but who knows. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oddball barnstar!

		The Oddball Barnstar
		For creating the Superpup article! 64.62.8.242 06:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you were the editor who created the article - fantastic, yet odd find! Funny! 64.62.8.242 06:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dreadlocke

... Is a superpup!!! Cool, dude. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Awwwww, Dreadlocke, you're so cool. Thank you! (: (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice

Thank-you very much for your kind and friendly advice, sorry for being a bit sensitive, you are probably the nicest person to correct me on wikipedia to date. Aaliyah Stevens 10:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Uncivil

I'll take a look later tonight. And you know, I'm never too busy to help people out. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well. Yes he is being incivil. I really don't like the "let's debate this somewhere else" stuff. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with mentioning Randi on the John Edward talk page since it involves Edward. On the other hand, please don't alter other people's posts. I know it was not a big change, but still. It just angers people. I think you guys just need to back off from each other for a few days. Maybe try emailing him if he's not comfortable discussing this stuff online. Just a thought. But yeah you did nothing wrong outside of changing one word in a post. I will post to his page. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that's a good way to handle it, Dreadlocke. Sometimes, some people just can't be helped and probably should be avoided. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, that's a tactic that many try in an argument on Wikipedia. "You two are working together!" or "you two are the same person!". Unless he has evidence, it's an attack. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

EVP new version

New version in the sandbox you made here Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

undiscussed moves

You may want to look at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Reverting_undiscussed_moves Goldfritha 21:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

SPR info that may interest you

[3] User:Kazuba 18 Feb 2007

Magician (fantasy)

You may also want to look at the discussion page for this. (It was moved to conform to naming standards.) Goldfritha 03:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Play

come play Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar-- I dunno, I have to move them.

Not the bandwidth- I've fixed it now (: User_talk:Martinphi

EVP

Yeh, Yeh, OK. You told me. But you also told me not to try to get it deleted just yet (I think you did anyway). What say you now? (I'm going to bed. It must be middle of the night where you are.) Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you know why

Figure I ought to say something. Now you know why I am most definitly a philogynist and a misandronist! Love the ladies! Watch out for those cognitive distortions. Everybody does it. User:Kazuba 22 Feb 2007

I'm trying. I also have to chain saw firewood, and help my mom pack for a trip. I did give him a list of weasels, he didn't really look, I guess. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (:

"Well, pop culture thinks it exists." Good one.

Yes, you're right about the definition being seperate from anything which might be said about the object of the definition.

So, my current edition on the talk page says that the paragraph has to be taken as a whole. I've been playing the skeptical game of NPOVing each sentence. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Edward

Can't we get the John Edward pic back? It was a good one- probably caused fainting fits with the girls. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Till the next mediation over that word.

Psychic article debate

Thanks for the award and comments! I know you said don't bother with the guy, but debating intelligently is one of my hobbies. It's like playing chess with words. I wouldn't bother with it if I didn't enjoy it. But thanks for caring.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 07:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Irrefutable

LOL! You are too funny! Great reaction. It's stunningly amazing to read this aftershock material....I could literally see your mouth falling open..! Welcome aboard the crazy train! -- Dreadlocke ☥ 09:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to be aboard, cap'n. ;)

But seriously... irrefutable. I wish MY arguments were that good!!! – Lantoka (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

JE pic

Your John Edward pic was good- I put it in as only him, cause they were complaining about the full cover. What do you think now? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

John Edward

I guess I'd recommend being more careful. Yes the first time was per a mediation decision but to many admins, they will still see that as a revert. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I would recommend that you start taking breaths. What do I mean? Well. It's like with all of the posts on my talk page. You have one where you thought that there was a dispute but then got it figured out. If you see something that upsets you or that you do not like, I would recommend just going away from it for awhile. Do not let small eruptions get to you so much. Because that's what they are. Small eruptions. Trust me. :) I've been at this racket for over 2 years. I've seen many many small eruptions. They pass. It's like with the Edward article. I love Wikipedia but you know, at the end of the day, it is not life or death. In the grand scheme of things, it is not that important. So sometimes you just have to take a deep breath and move on. As I told Wikidudeman, arguments very rarely lead to anything good on Wikipedia. Discussions are wonderful. But as soon as they cross that line and become an argument, it no longer becomes productive. Try to relax more and not things get to you so much. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Psychic

Hey dude,

It'd probably be best if you held off putting the "perform" wording back for the moment. I've just hopped back into the discussion and may be able to influence things. I'd hate to see the discussion break down, or you get blocked again for 3RR. – Lantoka (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Give me like six hours to argue Martin's interpretation of this thing and see if I can convince anybody. If stuff still looks bad, say, tomorrow, then you'll probably need to escalate by opening a new RfM. Although to be honest, I don't think that'll help much... if there's no consensus and nobody switches teams or goes to the sideline, then we're at a dead end. ArbCom rejects cases that deal solely with article content, since they focus more on interpretation of policy, user conduct, and sanctions. – Lantoka (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why they get to keep their version up is complicated. Basically, I've found that everything on Wikipedia works through de facto consensus. There are some exceptional entities (WP:ARBCOM and WP:OFFICE) and exceptional circumstances (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3), but in most cases the current consensus is what rules. And on the Talk:Psychic talk page, more people are in favor of the new wording than the old.

In fact, the supremacy of consensus has even been codified to some degree. You should know first hand... WP:3RR is pretty much meant to force users to seek consensus through discussion rather than edit warring. The situation gets muddier when tempers get hot and consensus isn't so clear, however... and thus our impasse over at Psychic.

Another thing to remember is that mediation is voluntary. All parties have to agree to participate in it as part of dispute resolution, and at that point they get assigned a mediator to hopefully help keep discussion productive. Mediation is designed to help editors find consensus on contentious issues, but as you can see it doesn't always work. And unfortunately, as you're seeing, the formal results don't really hold water if the de facto consensus changes right after. Again, mediation is just a process; there's no rulings or enforcement on the part of the Mediation Committee itself.

So this battle gets to be fought the tedious way: by writing books. Talk:Psychic has grown to 105KB since this most recent round of debate started. However, I do feel that we are making progress. We've got all of the regular editors of the Psychic article in one place, somewhat calmly discussing the lead. For now the important thing is to keep everybody calm and collected so that we can argue the merits of each option and hopefully convince everybody to go for one or the other... whichever one is truly better. – Lantoka (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yah dude, after reviewing your 3RR block again I'm not at all happy about the decision of a certain administrator to block you based on a strict interpretation of the rule. It's my understanding that you have to revert the same thing four times to get blocked for 3RR, and you got blocked for "reverting" different things (first the NPOV tag and later the wording of the intro).

However, I wouldn't let it get to ya too much man. One 3RR violation isn't going to get you blackballed or anything, and the block was leniently short (if unfair). And yes, it's fine to archive the warning whenever you like, as long as it's preserved somewhere. What can you do but move on man? – Lantoka (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Everywhere I said psychic I meant John Edward. Forgive me, it's been a long day. I slept 1.5 hours and then got up at 5:30 AM to write a 13 page abstract and annotated bibliography. Then I turned it in at 10 AM. Just got back from another class. Phew! I need a nap! – Lantoka (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Edward

Well, they had genuine rule-issues with the pics. Why don't you write to Edward's site, and ask for a pic? They'd be glad.

Has anyone actually been trying to destroy the rest of the article? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew you'd be mad. They put that in because of a power block, and they did it without consensus- with a supermajority, but without consensus. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This kind of think can't continue, or at least I can't keep up with it. I've been spending well over 90% of my time just arguing. I want to be writing with that time, not arguing. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, if you're really tired of it, let's do something radical to change the context and make the problem into a solution. I can't do it alone (and I'm still just getting started researching). Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, what was the last post about the 3RR? Was it meant for me? I'm glad your disheartened... see email. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Milo

Sorry, I had to get in that last comment to Milo. I don't think he even understands what he did, so I guess I'm just wasting my breath. No futher comments about the past, unless I take it to mediation again. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He probably thinks you're pro-psychic dude, and that you're the one trying to unilaterally disrupt consensus. That's why we all need to just calm down and show some good faith. Then hopefully we can overcome these assumptions about each other and objectively determine the most neutral wording. – Lantoka (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Yeah I would just archive the warnings. Actually, I'd highly recommend the Werdnabot process. It's described here. It's an automatic archiving service. It's hassle free and it takes alot of the "why did you archive XXXX" questions away. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I have no idea. You'd have to ask Werdna. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediumship

I have no idea. I only read one of his books, and I don't recall it. What they -or Milo- are doing is to ignore that the definition has to actually make sense. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Were they talking about in bios? It does say that about bios. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked if the two topics should be addressed separately. I don't think so. The key thing (and I'll add it to the talk page there) is that psychics and mediums and even psychic abilities are things. Mediumship, however is an idea, a religious belief. I personally think the article can cover both topics appropriately, but that's the distinction. One's a thing, the other's an idea.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 03:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Purported

Yeah, I know. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent attacks

You know, the sad thing is that this might be true. Who knows?:

I belive in truth and accurate representation of facts. Democracy is best governed through fact, not lies. I have a Degree in Evolutionary Biology. A Masters Degree In Software Design. A Master of Philosophy in Environmental Science. I am very well educated...and not a sceptic

From here Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

New category name?

Hi, Dreadlocke. As I say on my own Talk page, I'm not sure what you are trying to do with the category names now -- delete them? Let me know what you are up to and I'll try to support you.--Caleb Murdock 07:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Image

Well the fair use of a television show is that you are allowed to use it on the article of the show in question. Sorry about the late reply, but I only noticed that you answered when archiving my talk today. --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 00:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Milo

What did Milo actually do?

And, could you tell me about RFCs? I don't really understand what they are trying to do. I mean, does there have to be a consensus that I'm a bad kook, or merely a majority vote that I'm a bad kook? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Aware?

Hey, I don't know if you're aware of this or not: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Martinphi. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I endorsed a couple of choice summaries that reflect my views. I hope all is well with you and your family. – Lantoka (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tea

I only asked because I have a good friend who's a Professor at the University, thought you might know him - perhaps drop by to say hello and have a cup of tea. - sorry I missed that. I don't think I know any profs (unless its palaeontology or eng?). But tea is nice :-) William M. Connolley 19:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

I just wanted to let you know, a case has been requested at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Paranormal. Feel free to add yourself as an involved party, otherwise participate, or follow along if you're interested in it. --Minderbinder 14:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Confidence Tricks

WikiProject Confidence Tricks You recently edited an article that was about confidence tricks. I'm currently proposing an WikiProject to cover confidence tricks, and I'm curious to see if you're interested. If you are, please check out the proposal page, and join if you wish! Of course this is legitimate! Would I lie to you? Scalene•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є•

I'm not as active as I once was but I do follow these kinds of articles. I'll check back and see how far this has progressed. Hopefully I can be of some help down the road. - Tεxτurε 18:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Crossingover FCover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Crossingover FCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)