User:Perfectblue97/pnorm

Boy Scout Lane

Hey! I went ahead and responded to your request, but I did notice that you didn't follow the proceedure for the request listed on the page. Don't worry about it now, I went ahead and fixed it up; just wanted to let you know for the future. Oh, and I didn't mention this in the response, but I do believe that this article is VERY close to being ready to apply for good article status. Good job once again on it! --InShaneee 18:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

New England Skeptical Society

You deleted the following from that article: ", the most prominent of which is Penn and Teller's Bullshit!"

This is not vandalism, as he did in fact appear on the show as an expert. It was their show on Ghost Hunting. References:

1. board referencing it, with Steven Novella confirming it 2. "On July 11th 2005, Penn & Teller’s Showtime series, Bullshit! (http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/home.do) aired an episode called “Ghostbusters” about the pseudoscience of ghost investigation. Steven Novella, host of the Skeptics’ Guide, was one of two featured scientists/skeptics on the show." from skepticsguide website (website of Steven Novella's podcast)"

I've seen the episode myself, but I can't seem to google a really good reference (the second one's okay though). I'll try to find another.

--Havermayer 00:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

land squid

What is a "real cryptid"? The majority of critters on that page are clearly not "real". The land squid is thrown around in popular culture from time to time, but I don't know exactly what its origin is. Did I pick the wrong page to include it? — coelacan talk — 19:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The land squid did not originate with The Future Is Wild which was a 2003 show. It dates back to at least 1998 in popular culture.[1] — coelacan talk — 23:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Fellow skeptic

Even though we expressed very different opinions about the electrokinetic business, I just want to say that I like what I see on your user page. Wikipedia needs plenty of skeptics to fight the nonsense out there. I can't believe how many TV shows right now promote unconfirmed paranormal phenomena as reality. Every channel has one! Even the science channels set straight thinking to one side for the sake of ratings! So . . . regardless of circumstances, I'm always pleased to meet a fellow skeptic. Doczilla 07:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Evp1.png

It's a minor thing, but just so you know, the GNU doesn't allow you to specify 'conditions' of usage as you have on this image. --InShaneee 16:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Linda Moulton Howe

The voice really is well below professional radio quality. That's an objective fact. I'm quite sure the radio producers cringe when they hear the overmodulated screech -- it's a tribute, I suppose, to the information she has to offer that they book her nonetheless. I don't go in for revert wars. El Ingles 22:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

alleged CZ infoboxes

You're reportedly doing a grand job infoboxing everything that supposedly moves. Don't get RSI :) Totnesmartin 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (according to some reports)

Researcher infoboxes

That seems to have fixed the problem. Good work. (Emperor 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

Natasha Demkina

Glad to see someone working on the Natasha Demkina article. It was a hotly contested article for quite a while, mainly because one of the principle players in the CSICOP/CSMMH "investigation" of her was directly editing the article - and he was quite the aggressive type..but now he's left Wikipedia, so it will hopefully be an easier article to get involved with. I just haven't had the stomach to continue working on it yet.  :) I did work with a few other editors on an expansion draft, which came under assault by the now-departed editor. It's longer than I intended because everyone kept wanting to add things...but feel free to check it out and see if there's anything you think might be of value. I may start editing Demkina again in a few months...but I'm not quite ready yet...

BTW, I think they left "gift" in because it cuts both ways, a "gift" for what, exactly? The version you edited was the one approved and written by the chief skeptic...it hasn't really been touched since that time... Dreadlocke ☥ 01:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty! You probably won't like my draft, heck even I don't like parts of it.... :) As you can see, we tried to address all the concerns about attributions and any a priori assumptions. It's a tough line to walk between the skeptics and the believers... :)

I haven't really thought of it before you mentioned it, but I guess I have two definitions of "gift"; one is what you describe, something given by someone else, the other is a notable capacity, talent, or endowment. I've managed to keep the two separate without even thinking about it! Dreadlocke ☥ 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to reading your version! I like your view about including the core paranormal belief, while not having "alleged" or "so-called" or even "claimed" every other sentence - especially since those words are to be avoided according to WP:WTA. I was attempting to make the article about a biography of a living person rather than a "scientific" article about her paranormal power. Anyway, I can't wait to read your version! Dreadlocke ☥ 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your draft is starting to really shape up! Looking good! Dreadlocke ☥ 06:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks, for your comment "hey, no peeking", I needed a good laugh! I promise, no more peeking until I get the go-ahead! Dreadlocke ☥

Hope you are having a happy holiday season! I took a bit of time off from Wikipedia for the holidays, so I just now saw your note about your Demkina draft. I'll take a look as soon as I get a chance, I'm sure it's looking great! And hopefully I can provide you with more sources. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Perfectblue97/Natasha Demkina

Hi, for your info, Demkina did not complain about lack of authentication for the medical conditions during the test, or even immediately after. So far as I am aware, neither she nor any member of her team ever even asked to see proof. The complaint about proof not being provided after the test came some time after her return to Russia. Regards, — BillC ^talk 13:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

probability

A person is presented with 7 questions and 7 answers. What are the odds of them correctly pairing off 4 of them?

perfectblue 09:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If all 5040 permutations of the seven answers are equally probable, then the answer is given in the article titled rencontres numbers as 70/5040 = 1/72 = 0.013888.... That's if you mean EXACTLY four. If you mean AT LEAST four, then it's a somewhat larger number: 23/1260 = 0.018253968.... Michael Hardy 20:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Harry Price

Hi Perfectblue 97, The Daily Express is running a feature on Harry Price. I have seen the image you have uploaded of him taken with a spirit in the background taken by William Hope. Is there any chance you could email to me a hi-res copy at: siobhain.furlong@express.co.uk I would be very grateful for your urgent help Many thanks in advance Siobhain Furlong Daily express features picture desk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.189.104.50 (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Natasha Demkina

It may have escaped your attention that I did not revert your changes. My criticism is not about content, it is about replacing a highly controversial article with a complete rewrite without any prior discussion on its talk page. You are asking others to tag questionable content and to explain the reasoning for deletions, but that is not what you did when you replaced the article. Regardless of the merits of the rewrite, this is a perfect method for getting people riled up. Rl 07:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You keep claiming that your changes have been discussed somewhere, but you have not provided any links to the pertinent discussions, nor have you offered any explanation for not having (or at least announcing) said discussions on the article talk page where they belong. Rl 08:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see your version put into place, I see it's been attacked already - it's been a very contentious article. I think some editors are being a bit over-the-top on this, when after all, we're supposed to be bold! And the most contentious editor of all over this article has left Wikipedia. Sorry you're running into this trouble, I'll be back online later in the week and will see what I can do to help. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Perfectblue97. Please don't forget to use edit summaries to help your fellow editors track changes to articles. Thank you. Nick Graves 17:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Graves, don't forget to tag and bag. RV is not a valid motto.

perfectblue 17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

EVP

Let's not try too hard. An objective presentation with minimal comment is the way to show it's nonsense. All that's needed is to remove any claim that it's generally accepted. DGG 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I may not have been clear. If we present what has taken place as reported by observers, and what people of different perspectives have said, I think the truth situation will be clear to a reader. (I privately assume that paranormal phenomena are nonsense, and that a neutral presentation will invariably show it. But i will give an objective presentation in any case. I may be wrong; if the UFOs land, I will know I was wrong.) I meant to differentiate myself from some of my over-enthusiastic fellow-unbelievers, who are willing to distort arguments and even data in order to accomplish the greater good of showing the absolute truth. I don't do that--in fact, they embarrass me.

Thus I can find myself able to work with believers in the paranormal, if they think analogously. They may be willing to present the matter objectively, and lay out the arguments fairly, under their secure assumption that it will demonstrate what they know to be true. On the other hand, they too may be over enthusiastic, and distort. I can deal with that--I do not refute, I ignore and present the facts. The people I cannot deal with are the ones of my own side who distort. ( I usually try to convince they to keep quiet on grounds of expediency) I think you will know whom I include in this description.

I think we basically agree, judging by your user page, which I have just seen. (As an aside, I too have heard such noises as we've been discussing. They tended to occur in the early morning, they took the form of semi-intelligible radio stations, and they correlated with recent ethanol consumption. I have no intentions to say this on the talk page.) I assume the readers are not fools, but perhaps uneducated, and they will recognize the truth, sooner or later. On my user p., I say "I do not try to convert my opponents. I try to convert their audience." My ultimate source for this is JS Mill. DGG 08:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Demkina and the Center

Hi, so is there another place to put this information, [2] or is the opening paragraph the best location? Do you see any problem putting it "on the same line" as the University? Seems like a specious argument to me. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Very good point about her not giving up and going home. It looks like another editor has put the information on the Center back where it belongs, and the disputing editor has dropped from watching the page (and I presume editing it). Dreadlocke ☥ 18:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I've been reading your comments to other editors about the article, and I think you're very good at handling them. I should probably just keep my big mouth shut... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 08:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you planning on adding more of your sandbox version to the main article? Let me know in advance, and I'll try to help avoid any minefields...although you seem quite adept at that youself..:) Dreadlocke ☥ 04:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary of EVP

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

MacRae

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

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

Summary

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

• Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is a term coined by Colin Smyth to describe speech or speech-like sounds of paranormal origin occurring on previously unused recording media. It was first reported by Raymond Bayless and popularized by Konstantin Raudive.[1][2][3] As with all paranormal phenomena, the existense of EVP is disputed. Some say that the sounds thought to be EVP are caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits, but others say they can be explained by such things as pareidolia or radio signals. [4]
• EVP is currently defined by the paranormal research group AA-EVP as any "anomalous voices captured on any form of audio recording" [2] that is discovered upon playback, but was not detected at the time that the recording was made, and which does not appear to originate from any local source. [3] EVP are typically brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are also claimed.[5] They are normally in a language understood by those present at the time of recording.[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

perfectblue 17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Problem Found! Whitespace

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

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

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

Whitespace problem fixed!

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

What's paranormal?

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

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

Paranormal practicum

Hi again Perfectblue,

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, what you just put on my talk page is good! I've added it here Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your own essay

No of course I wouldn't be offended if you do your own essay. It's just that there is a very well-organized and united front, which while laudable in its goals is likely to give rise on the fringes to edits which seek to discredit. I think equal organization is needed to keep negative results from occurring. I think the paranormal project needs to do something together. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you're a member of the rational skepticism project, but you are alos fair to the paranormal. That's one reason I asked you.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that when Wikipedia:Lead_section is followed, the summary is supposed to give a clear overview of the article. But, at the same time, many people often want to make half the summary into a refutation of the field. I like the creationism summary. It doesn't give doubt/skepticsm the main emphasis, but it does includes it.

Demkina information

An excellent analysis of the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation into Natasha Demkina is on this website: Natasha Demkina Summary Update. It is not considered a WP:RS, but it has a lot of good information on Natasha, the experiment and other related issues. An interesting section is the emails exchanged between the scientists and Natasha's agent: Natasha Demkina emails. I think it can be used as a "further reading" or "external link", but I don't believe it can pass muster for an actual reference. Interesting read, if nothing else! You may have seen it in my own draft, but just in case... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 09:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

NOR

I'm not certain that I quite agree with the disputing editors that including information on Bayesian Analysis from Mathworld constitutes Original Research and thus violates WP:NOR. The main purpose of NOR is to keep ediors from publishing their own original ideas or theories. Secondarily, the policy prohibits a "synthesis" of material. This would prohibit using the Mathworld information to refute the results or means used by CSICOP, but would not prohibit a short description (including some of the caveats) of Bayesian Analysis using the Mathworld site at a reference. There's no real synthesis going on in the latter situation. I'm on the fence about this one, but I guess I lean towards OR.

Mathworld doesn't mention Demkina or the experiment, but it doesn't have to - it mentions Bayesian Analysis, and so does the Demkina article. I don't think this constitutes original research. But, then again, perhaps we would want to avoid any hint of a potential synthesis. Perhaps it would be sufficient if we just make sure all the information from the mathworld site is in the linked Wikipedia article. What are your thoughts on this? Dreadlocke ☥ 09:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I'm off the fence and squarely on the NOT-OR side! Dreadlocke ☥ 18:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Criticism and response in parapsychology

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_and_response_in_parapsychology

Hi Perfectblue, it would be great to have you opinion on the above. 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 help. 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)} 05:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

EVP

Hi perfectblue, Is there more than one source, the one from the SPR, which is peer-reviewed, and which says the explanation of EVP is probably paranormal? (I mean the Report of an Electronic Voice Phenomenon Experiment inside a Double-Screened Room from the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research). If there isn't it might be better to go for the most precise wording possible, because that's all that's going to be allowed. That's because I don't know if we'd win an arbcom or mediation which said that a "scientist" is not necessarily a person published in a peer-reviewed journal or someone with a degree.

For instance, I just had to change back an edit which changed "Experiments performed by some scientists have found no evidence of EVP,<ref name="Baruss"/> while others have concluded that the sounds are probably paranormal.<ref>http://www.skyelab.co.uk/review/bb.htm</ref><ref name="macRae1">{{cite journal | last = MacRae | first = Alexander | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Report of an Electronic Voice Phenomenon Experiment inside a Double-Screened Room | journal = Journal of the Society for Psychical Research | volume = | issue = | pages = | publisher = Society for Psychical Research | date = October 2005 | url = | doi = | id = | accessdate = }}</ref>

to

"Experiments performed by scientists have found no evidence of EVP.." Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok cool, there may be a problem: You say "The SPR is over 100 years old, and is affiliated with one of the worlds most renowned universities, and its journal is fully peer reviewed."

The current problem is that that journal article [3] says: "MacRae, A., (2003), 'A Means of Producing the Anomalous Speech Products Based on Electro-Dermal Activity', in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, (date TBA) 2003" and Milo H Minderbinder and I don't know whether it was actually published.

See the discussion under the heading "NPOV", and the discussion here. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 08:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it really was published. Need to tell people that on the EVP page. What do you think of the current debate about making it more about culture? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Play

come play Sandbox on parapsychology as a science. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But we have to muster all facts. The reason for this is that we need in some articles to cite parapsychology as a science, or to cite the consensus in the field. What this is about, is prep for arbitration. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue, I have no question myself that it is a science. But you should look at the Psychic talk page. We need to get this decided as a matter of policy on Wikipedia. OK, if you think that all we need to say to ArbCom is "it's a member of the AAAS", you may be right. But before I go all that way, I want to have thought of all angles, because the pseudoskeptics will run roughshod over us if we don't win. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all you ideas on parapsychology as a science. I wish I could get to a library, but I'm too far out in the country. I just want to get parapsychology defined as a science on Wikipedia, because I keep getting stuff from people who say, it is not a science, there is absolutely nothing to this. I want to be able to cite it as a science, rather than just something some crazies study. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

EVP mess

That EVP article is a horrid mess, I cannot believe the lengths the so-called "skeptical" side will go to in order to try and completely discredit every single bit of it. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

email

Perfectblue, it would be convienient if you were to create a special email account which you would be willing to share with Wikipedia users.

What is the status of EVP within parapsychology? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

EVP

Suggestion: let them work. Then later, we get together and sandbox it, and revise it to something NPOV. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly- especially the part about getting more people together. I know little about the topic, my interest is purely NPOV. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes- I'm not even looking at the article now. Let them expend their energies making it all POV-skeptic. Then we'll sandbox it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinion?

You might want to take a look here: [4]

RfC

I know you've worked a lot with Martin, thought you might like to know about this; Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Martinphi. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I don't know if you're watching the RfC page, but this was directed at you. I guess he was just trying to say that since you didn't comment on some of the actual charges that you weren't directly involved with, that you apparently had nothing good to say. It's an "outside view", so you can comment on any of it, even if you weren't directly involved in the incident. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope I defended you correctly from the attack by Simões. I just couldn't stand by and see that go unremarked on. You're right, it was an ad-hominem attack from him that could only be meant to try and discredit you. Terrible. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed the heading structure of these sections [5] because they appear to be separate subject. If I'm wrong, please revert or tell me to do it...Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 00:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I have endorsed your opinion on the Martin RFC. And I think it's unconscionable for these skeptics trying to harass established editors who oppose them. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Confused

I'm a litte bit confused. You put all sort of tags at Free energy suppression. --Pjacobi 17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I posted all sorts of tags on free energy suppression. I did so because I think that the page was valid but is in need of work. If I didn't think that the page belonged, period, I'd have put up the deletion tag myself.

My personal standpoint is that the substance of free energy suppression conspiracy has no grounding in fact, but that the conspiracy itself (the belief that gas companies are suppressing free energy) does exist and is notable.

Think of the page as being about an urban myth. The myth doesn't have to be true to be told.

perfectblue 18:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast response -- I hope you don't mind that I've move it back kere to keep the topic together.

I've following one of Jimbo's remark, that adding all sort tags to dubious information, can be inferior to just deleting it.

The urban myth type of article is fine with me -- but, what seems doubtfull from your tagging and a quick seach I did myself, is whether there exists a coherent topic of free energy suppression, for which secondary sources can be found. Obviously there are persons X, Y and Z who voiced an opinion of some form of free energy suppression -- but that would only give primary sources. Stitching an article together from primary sources is discouraged.

Pjacobi 18:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to the comment by Jimbo that I think you're referring to, he was actually talking specifically referring to pages about living people, which you have to be particularly hot on because of the danger of being sued for libel.

According to policy, we should discuss deletions or otherwise allow for discussion. Adding a fact tag to something is one way of calling attention to point of concern. If I were simply to delete everything that I thought needed verifying, many pages might loose valuable content that just needs citing (a 5 minute job for somebody knowledgeable in the subject). Besides, half of the things that I tagged I personally know or believe to be true, but I can't think of a good enough citable source at this time (I can't just quote a college lecturer as etc being my source, it has to be a book or something).

perfectblue 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

By now I've tried myself finding sources and improving the article, also made a cautionary comment at the AfD. Still undecided. --Pjacobi 20:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I'd like to apologize for the parenthetical insinuation of your motives I made on the RFC discussion. It added nothing to my post and was entirely uncalled for. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 14:48, 6 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 14:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you can add yourself as an involved party and add a Statement by X section. --Minderbinder 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added you as a party to the requested case. --Minderbinder 20:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR on EVP

A report has been filed at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Perfectblue97 reported by User:Minderbinder (Result:) --Minderbinder 20:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Kaz 11 (ship)

Hey. I noticed you just created Kaz 11 (ship), which seems to be about the same ship as Kaz II, an article created yesterday. Looking at the Google News hits, "Kaz II" seems to be the correct name, so I suggest merging and redirecting there. And good work. Thanks, Prolog 16:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Member?

Please sign the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Paranormal member list. Thanks. J. D. Redding 01:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I've presented my evidences in the evidence subpage of the paranormal arbcom case. Take a look if you would like to. Thank you! Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Full page-width infoboxes...

...go at the bottom of the page. --ScienceApologist 14:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology Article Sandbox

Hi, I'm working on a rewrite of the parapsychology article in my Sandbox. You are welcome to join us if you have any input. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot

Hi, Perfectblue! SatyrBot ran a demo last night through WP:PARANORMAL. It created User:SatyrBot/Paranormal and User talk:SatyrBot/Paranormal - one is the full list and one is the short list. Take a look and let me know if you want me to continue running the bot on that project.

Another thing that occurred to me is that, if you're just wanting to watchlist all the articles that have your banner, you may be more interested in Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Paranormal. Would that do what you're looking for? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Haven't heard from you lately, so wanted to know if the bot's working right for you. Let me know on my talk page? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

?

You know about this, don't you? I didn't find it for a while. Also here. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Page

Just a friendly note to say that you made your comments about the Arbitrators' proposal on a page that is supposed to be edited only by arbitrators. You might want to consider moving it to the talk page, instead. Antelan ^talk 18:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think he's right. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Something needs to be said. - perfectblue 20:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As an Arbitration Committee Clerk, I can advise that what is stated above is correct. As noted on the top of the page, only arbitrators (and clerks, for ministerial items) may edit the /proposed decision page. However, you are free to edit any other arbitration-related pages including the Evidence page, the Workshop page, or the Proposed decision talk page. Please note that this is just a procedural point I am making here, not a comment on the merits of any aspect of the case. Regards. Newyorkbrad 22:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It was an honest mistake. I entered the page from a link that lead to a point half way down its length and so was unaware of the text at the top. - perfectblue 10:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You're probably Ok, as Kirill Lokshin just opposed your ban. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that probation was suggested for a user who committed multiple 3rr and civility violations, far far worse than anything that I've ever been accused of let alone actually done, I can't help but feel that the ban was suggested based on alternate grounds. - perfectblue 10:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF Antelan ^talk 10:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts come in regards to a particular "incident" which I believe to be a trigger. The individual in question took exception to my inclusion of a MIB parody on my user page and deleted a section from it. I noticed the edit a couple of days later and reverted it. 1 hour later the ban was put forward. This comes after my having voluntarily removed myself from all of the controversies raised in the arbitration and having ceased participating in it several weeks prior. perfectblue 12:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I understand. Antelan ^talk 20:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Springheeled Jack

Over all I think your edits were pretty good, but you and other editors really have to stop changing the British spellings to American English.

For example:

Skeptical (US) -> Sceptical (UK) Rumor (US) -> Rumour (UK) Neighboring -> Neighbouring (UK)

and so forth and so on. Can you please go through and turn those back to how they were? And if you want to put in a comment tag that the spelling is correct and should not be changed it'd help prevent future editors from making the same mistakes.

Thanks. DreamGuy 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that the spelling changes to spring healed Jack weren't a mistake, these are genuine American English spellings. It's largely a matter of personal knowledge and preference which are used. If you don't like them I won't interfere. perfectblue 17:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry... The article is clearly about a topic in England, therefore British spelling is always used regardless of the personal preferences of the editors involved. That's a policy here. I am American as well, but I follow the style guide here that everyone is expected to follow. Please return them to British spellings. DreamGuy 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Wikipedia having any policies on British V American English usage at all. Would you be so good as to point them out to me? All that I could find were four non-binding guidelines in the MOS that "suggested" ways in which conflicts over spelling could best be avoided, while stating that no one form is considered to be the rule.

I would also ask you to please spare a thought for those who can't use British English. There are many users who are not native speakers and whom are doing their very best with the English that they know, or whom are from non-internationalized areas of America and whom have not been exposed to British English in any meaningful way. For these users, writing in British English is not a practical option. Personally, I consider American English to be more accessible to some because it has a less complicated grammatical structure and simpler, more consistent, spelling. - perfectblue 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Parapsych

Hey Perfectblue97,

Just wanted to let you know that the university links you added were already in the article in the same section, so now they're duplicated. I'm not sure if this is something in progress so I didn't want to change it, but I wanted to point it out to you. Antelan ^talk 18:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology Links

Hey, I noticed that you've been reverting my changes to the links section. I've been trying to pare down the list a bit, in part to satisfy another editor, but mostly to make sure that the list is well within the guidelines of WP:EL so that the article can get featured status one day. Let's work together on this. Considering that we're trying to keep the list small, I thought that links to defunct labs and organizations could be deleted, as well as any link that doesn't point to a major lab or organization. Let me know your thoughts. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to tell me how notable those labs are :-) I vaguely recall that drafting that links list to begin with. However, since we are trying to pare down the links list, perhaps mention of those labs in the section on "Laboratories, Organizations, and Journals" would suffice? If not, your input on the talk page would be helpful. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"made to look" scientific

Your recent edit comment raise a question for me. Does a pseudoscience have to be "made to look" scientific? The definition in the Oxford English (1982) says that a pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs mistakenly thought of as scientific. The phrase "made to look" implies that it was deliberate act when that is not always the case. Some theories start off as scientific and only develop features of pseudoscience at a later date. I largely support your position on excluding those obscure subjects that have never seriously been considered or "made to look" scientific. --Potentiate 11:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Killer Badger

Do you mind if I nominate this article for the "Did You Know" section of the main page? It would definitely attract readers to the article (which I've found happen with new articles of mine). Another, similar request: May I list it in the Wikipedia:Unusual articles page? Totnesmartin 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for providing your opinion on my RS question. I almost brought it directly to you, I admire the work you do on Wikipedia! I really like your MIB Wikipe-Tan! I was surprised to see it brought up in the Paranormal ArbCom case...glad someone else saw the connection behind the MIB phrase! Dreadstar † 17:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is hilarious! Every time I read it, I find something else to laugh about! Perfect, perfectblue! Dreadstar † 08:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A good laugh now and then is a must. - perfectblue 18:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Killer badger

On 19 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Killer badger, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology FA

Hello, I noticed that you were a frequent editor of the Parapsychology article. The article has gone through a lot of work and improvements and has recently been promoted to Good Article and is currently being nominated for Featured Article. If you believe it's Featured Article material then please go here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parapsychology and show your support or add input for improvements that can quickly be made. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location. Dradin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. Kazuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomenon rewrite project

Hey, I noticed you were a frequent contributor to the Electronic voice phenomenon article and I thought I'd let you know that I'm proposing a rewrite project for the article. I thought you might be interested in contributing to it. Currently the article seems to have numerous dispute problems including POV issues and I thought I could get it to at least a Good Article. You can see my proposal on it's talk page here Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon. There are a few questions I'd like you to answer first though. If you have any questions about it you can leave me a message. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

I don't recall this as being part of the ArbCom ruling. It looks like it came from this, but I don't believe the arbitrator actually said to use that specific wording; and the statement from the arbitrator: "I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the psychic article vis a vis this matter," leaves me with the understanding that the original wording was fine and didn't need to be changed at all...much less being "literally per the ArbCom". Looks like the editor who added it is willing to edit war over it, so I thought I'd get another opinion on it...and you seem like the perfect choice..;) – Dreadstar † 17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Given the context and the specific labeling in the edit summary, it would indeed appear to be a provocative edit. 2) It goes against my own personal interpretation of the arb 3) "nonphysical forces" is an inaccurate description and needs to be changed regardless of anything else. 4) "Apparently" could be viewed as POV pushing as it implies that sufficient empirical/circumstantial evidence has been presented to attest to psychic powers being paranormal as far as general consensus goes.

You can revert if you wish, you'll get no complaints from me. I think that it could potentially be reverted on POV ground alone. - perfectblue 19:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Good comment on the Arbitration page; and I totally agree with you. I would rather see a consensus discussion take place on the Talk:Psychic page than to just revert the disputed edit again - I think it might just lead to edit warring, which is one of the basic things ArbCom was really addressing with its rulings. If we are interpreting the edit correctly as a provocative or WP:POINT edit, then it's unfortunate that Uninvited Co's hope seems to have been missed: "I realize that those editors who place particular weight on debunking paranormal phenomenon may not agree with the decision. I hope they will respect it nonetheless. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)". – Dreadstar † 19:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should post a copy of the above discussion on the Talk:Psychic page? – Dreadstar † 19:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Care to discuss the article on its talk page, in full view of other editors? Antelan ^talk 22:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. – Dreadstar † 22:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Antelan ^talk 23:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not get involved. here is fine for me. perfectblue 16:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to revert and shoot me, if you disagree with my unilateral move, perfect... :( – Dreadstar † 23:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Shoot you? OK, but only if you're certain that there isn't a policy against that? - perfectblue 20:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't one, I could write one real fast! WP:DON'TSHOOTDREADSTAR...;) I edited the Talk:Psychic page to remove your comments, and just leave mine. No need to shooteth me... – Dreadstar † 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

BF

Congrats! [6] – Dreadstar † 06:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent reversion on Crop circles

Please be careful when blanket reverting multiple edits. It is all too easy to undo good contributions, and creates extra work for other editors. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 02:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

""Please observe WP:AFG, I reverted or reasons which I saw as valid. It is important to explain th methodology of skeptics else they appear to be pseudoskeptics. - perfectblue 08:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am indeed assuming good faith on your part. That's why I'm not accusing you of tendentious editing, or demanding an apology for your mistaken reversion of good edits. If your blanket revert was indeed well-justified, then you should have no difficulty reverting each individual edit of mine (which I have since restored) and explaining why it is correct to do so, on a case-by-case basis. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 16:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You may or may not know this, but there was a recent arb com decision on paranormal entries that "strongly discouraged" the repeated insertion and deletion of material. In order to show my support for this decision I have no intention of engaging in any form of edit war (nor behavior that could be conceived as initiating an edit war) in regards to your additions. On this basis, will not revisit my revision the text that you added by either adding or removing them. However, I maintain a defense of my assertion that the inclusion of methodologies are important in order to differentiate between a scientific skeptic conducting research and a pseudo-skeptics voicing an opinion as if it were a conclusion. - perfectblue 17:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you review all of the changes you made in that revert, rather than just the first paragraph, it will become clearer to you that you changed far more than "inclusion of methodologies" can justify. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The bulk of my edit WAS about the methodology. There is only so much you can type in an edit summary. I stand by my edit and have no intention of being drawn into a protracted argument over it. Please simply accept that I did not feel that I was removing anything of earth shaking, and leave it at that. Already considerably more has been written on the edit than in the edit. - perfectblue 18:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Alor Incident sources

Hi, not sure if you are watching Alor Incident and its Talk page, but I left the following message for you there and am hoping for a response:

"I'm a little bit confused here. Your edit summary when removing the PROD states, "but everything is clearly sourced to indonesia publications", but there was no direct sourcing until your next edit, where you simply added citations to both publications for every paragraph to the sources mentioned at the end of the article. However, your username does not appear in any previous edits, you do not appear to have written the article, yet you confidently added footnotes to cite every paragraph of the existing text to two extremely obscure publications (which I cannot even confirm the existence of, and am extremely dubious that they are reliable sources). Do you have those publications in front of you, in order to confirm that what the article asserts is actually confirmed by the sources as written? --MCB 06:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)"

In other words, when you added the footnotes, you are personally attesting to the existence of the sources by actually examining them, in print or online, and verifying that the content of the sources reflects the assertions in the article. Is that, in fact, the case? Thanks, --MCB 00:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Psurgery

Hi PB, you ran headlong into the intense atmosphere of psychic surgery...;) I think your reasoning for restructuring the article makes a lot of sense. If you want to pursue it, I'm sure we can work with the other editors on it. I was trying to find a common ground between the two previous extremes. Let me know if you want to pursue your restructuring of the article, I think it needs some help and I believe there are a few other editors like Jennylen and Librarian2 who might be excellent partners in the rewrite/restructure. Dreadstar † 08:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal and par-abnormal

Hello perfectblue97. I saw your interventions at P-surgery and when I visited your page I was glad to see that you crusade for separating the mud from the earth. Just wanted to tell you that I totally suport that. I also wanted to invite you to visit WP:TIMETRACE and see if you can help there in your areas of knowledge.Librarian2 16:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you there too! I'll definitely do the best I can to try and keep things flowing smoothly and to help however I can. Dreadstar † 17:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to help where I can. Sadly, there are people out there whom I can't help but feel oppose the time lining of things related to the paranormal because it shows that certain beliefs and myths have a history and that they evolved over time. Thus that they aren't a here today gone tomorrow fad that somebody dreamed up one night on the web (The belief in aliens, for example, goes back long before the story of Betty and Barny Hill appeared in the papers, and owes its present day state to more than just the X-files). They seem to equate anything that verifies the existence of a belief in the paranormal historically with an attempt to justify the contents of that belief, when in fact the existence of a belief and the scientific facts (or lack of them) of the belief can operate entirely independently.

I've had an up hill struggle in the past attempting to show the origins of certain paranormal beliefs. - perfectblue 17:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me know where and when I could be of help. ℒibrarian2 20:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Clapham Wood Mystery

Thank you for your comment on my talkpage. However, I did leave a description of what I thought was unbalanced - it was deleted from the talk page however due to inactivity (I forgot to reply). I have restored the discussion and replied now. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 08:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Psychic seduction

Hey, if you really think that the Psychic seduction article should exist, you can fix the article and make an announcement in the AfD. Right now there are no verifiable sources to prove its encyclopedic relevance. If you decide to fix it, make sure any refs you include abide by WP:V, and external links by WP:EL, particularly the "Commercial links" section. Joie de Vivre 11:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two different sides to psychic seduction, one is the belief that people can use actual psychic powers to seduce people, and the other is basically using body language and confidence in order to make yourself more desirable. I know very little about either side and so could not put together a competent entry on the subject. - perfectblue 13:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)