User talk:Perfectblue97
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This user is a part of WikiProject Supernatural, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the supernatural. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
Contents |
[edit] Old Conversations
[edit] Award from Dynamo_ace
Keep up the good work!-Dynamo_ace Talk
[edit] I DO
You told me to put it on the talk page, so I did. I have my own reasons for not showing them to the public and no they are not on Wikipedia. I won't tell you why, but here is a hint (I am not joking)= my family made $11,000 in the mail today. My security must be secure because those discussions have clues of my identity. Tyar 20:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I already know that, and I have not threatened anyone (or you using it as an example?). You have started all conversations on my talk page, so I would have to reply to you? How? Don't know you email adress (its not that I want to) so how do I contact you? I know about the history on them, but that doesn't reveal that much. Actually, there is only one word in the discussion that could give away my identity. That is still one way. So how about we start pesterizing each other and have a brand new start as friends to each other when it comes to W.I.T.C.H. pages? Tyar 21:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
OKAY! (When I said start pesterizing, I meant stop). Tyar 15:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Researcher infoboxes
That seems to have fixed the problem. Good work. (Emperor 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC))
[edit] 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)
