User talk:Candorwien

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. You may also be interested in reading The five pillars of Wikipedia, our Help pages, the Tutorial, the policy on citing sources, and our Manual of Style.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Paul Cyr 22:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I have notice that you have changed my edition on IBO very quickly and i appriciate it. I was wondering why you did this. You see, i made those errors to test out the response time of Wikipedia (i am currently doing an extend essay over Wikipedia and how accurate it is). Please if you would like to help me on my investigation you can contact me through huy_ph@yahoo.com. Thx IBSTu

heres the poll: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?CI=14107

Wyatt 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Isaac Newton 2 WikiProject Guitarists Newsletter - Issue II - October 2006 3 Potential infoboxes for fact vs. theory 4 Ouch! 5 Request for Mediation 6 Creationism 7 whale fossils? 8 Remingtonocetidae: very cute pics. where did they get those wonderful snapshots of those creatures? 9 you claimed there was a plethora of intermediary whale fossils. i have search for hours and never have seen them. i you have the info share it with the world thanks 10 NPOV warning 11 Evolution 12 Evolution (2) 13 WatchlistBot 14 Jimmy Page revert 15 REGARDING YOUR UNNECESSARY RUDENESS AND ATTACKS ON OTHER WIKIPEDIA USERS ON JIMMY PAGE DISCUSSION PAGE 16 EVP 17 Peacekeeping 18 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

[edit] Isaac Newton

You should take a look at Chaucer--hardly anything there is spelled right! Beowulf is even worse. Nareek 14:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would put "right" in quotes.--Filll 16:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Guitarists Newsletter - Issue II - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the WikiProject Guitarists newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Aguerriero (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential infoboxes for fact vs. theory

Some rough draft versions of infobox type tables on this subject are available for your inspection at Talk:Evolution/FactvsTheory.--Filll 16:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ouch!

I have hit a road block or two when trying to improve the lead section on evolution and in the "fact and theory" sections of the evolution and the Creation-evolution controversy articles. I have compiled a comparison between the different proposed sections of text at Talk:FactandTheoryComparison and at Talk:Evolution/LeadComparison and there is a discussion of this at Talk:Evolution. I would appreciate it if you took a peek and let me know what you think. Thanks !!--Filll 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Talk:Evolution. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Creationism

Take a look at Creationism and the venting in the reasons for edits.--Filll 21:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] whale fossils?

a plethora?

please show me a link or whatever.

to my knowledge there is like 10 bones that are the transistional fossils

show me please

Use [1]. Try entering some key words which you can figure out for yourself. Try not to be lazy. Also sign your name. Candy 15:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

well i have spent many hours of research on this and to the best of my knowledge there are just maybe 20 bones that are used to show the evolution of whales

why dont you not be lazy and show me how i am incorrect.

No. Candy 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry i didnt sign my name

raspor 15:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC) raspor 15:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC) raspor 15:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remingtonocetidae: very cute pics. where did they get those wonderful snapshots of those creatures?

Remingtonocetidae

how many bones were found for this so cute creature swimming in the pond? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raspor (talk • contribs) 14:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

How come you don't sign your posts? As you don't have any specifics of what you refer to (that is you are vague and need more precison) I have to hazard a guess. If you mean on [2] and you mean the bottom drawing (artist's impression) then they got it from Carl Buell. (It says in the accompanying text "Illustration by Carl Buell".) Candy 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] you claimed there was a plethora of intermediary whale fossils. i have search for hours and never have seen them. i you have the info share it with the world thanks

raspor 15:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

lol Candy 15:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

yes it is funny. there is no plethora. just show me!

raspor 15:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

An admirable response, Candy. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Raspor#Educating raspor. .. dave souza, talk 10:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand more about raspor now. Thanks Dave! Now back to serious editing......

[edit] NPOV warning

I just put up a new article at Support for evolution summarizing the scientific, religious etc support for evolution. I realized that although there are many creationist articles, evolution mainly has science articles, or an article or two about the history of various parts of the dispute. I am told that summarizing the support that exists on one side is nonneutral (although I do include a section describing support for the creationist side). How is it nonneutral to give the objective information? I am not saying who is right. But it is a bit hard to deny that support exists. See below: --Filll 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While I am in support of evolution, I do find that this article is difficult to put into the light of a neutral point of view. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute this. The topic is that support exists. Whether that support is justified or not is another issue. I have copious references from both sides and it is a bit hard to deny that support exists in the scientific, religious and other communities. How is that being biased to summarize the support that exists?--Filll 03:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While I think what you have done -Filll is an admirable piece of publishing and I'm pretty awed by it, I have to say I'm keeping out of the debate. I think over the past few years I've had it ad nauseum with the ignorant militant creationists. I've taught creationists (who were adventists or evangelicals) who were pretty smart kids and I enjoyed many of the discussions with them but they were far different so some of the "discussions" I've had in Wikipedia. I came to understand that when there is a strong belief system which relies on dogma and appeals are made to the preternatural/supernatural then the discussions were always irrational. Added to that I feel many of the creationists/trolls editing here regurgitating arguments they are indoctrinated with. There seems to be a wide-spread belief of those without good science training that evolution is easy to understand. It is not. This also shows in the comments made. I think that Intelligent Design is a threat to evolution not in a scientific sense but as a destructive, unsubstantiated belief system trying to politicise and control people.

I should add that I don't believe in evolution. As a rational scientist I accept that much of the current neo-Darwinist theory is the current best possible match to the evidence. I continue to study developments in evolution. Some parts are still hard for me to fully comprehend yet I continue to try to do so. I support evolution as a fact because of my first hand experimental studies, the vast amount of peer reviewed experimental evidence and supoorting evidence from other areas of science (geophysics, physics, biochemistry, genetics, paleontology etc). If at some point I find there is a better theory to support the evidence I will accept that. Intelligent Design and its legion do not present an alternative to evolution which can be taken seriously; nor are they science.

Furthermore, I articulate a broader the definition of scientist - far more than is usually understood in some of the trivial bickering that goes on in the evolution talk pages. Scientists include students in school studying science as well as those with multiple degrees. Science can be learned auto-didactically and many people have done so and become well-known in their fields. Scientists are not the font of all knowledge they are fallible too. Qualifications, by themselves, do not necessarily make one's views anymore valid than anothers. However, I totally believe there are good practitioners of science and poor ones (although either of these labels do not necessarily apply all the time to an individual). Scientists are also athletes, playboys, famous people, rock stars, collect stamps, parachute, couch potatoes and all the other things that all other people are too. And you know what? I don't care. It still means that excellent science is going on. It also means you can believe in Astrology and be a good scientist. A scientist doesn't have to be rational all the time! Newton was the last of the alchemists as well as (debatably) the first of the scientists. It doesn't mean calculus is flawed because alchemy is!

I came to Wikipedia to assist in writing articles that I felt I had some expert knowledge in creating, experience in helping to write and edit (that is help grammatically in material that I was interested in but was no expert) and discuss in a profitable way (that is I may learn something interesting or find a new perspective) something meaningful. I feel I have been distracted somewhat. Despite my irritation I am getting back to editing the article. I, wrongly, thought that education would be the best way to deal with the irrational behaviour of some of the detractors of evolution. I think I was wrong. I see that some of them do not understand enough science and do not wish to. Their agendas are political and irrational. Their responses are often at the level of an angry three year old.

There is no room for creationism imho in a biological article about evolution except to link to creationism as an alternative explanation to evolution or (depending on the scope of the article), link to any ID or link to historical perspectives (eg Scope's Trial or abuse of Darwin by the media of the day) etc under the umbrella that this is relevent to a reader under the context of science in society. Now excuse me, I have an article to read. Candy 12:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. I appreciate the kind words. I was accused of being biased, and not presenting the creationism side, so I rewrote it and shortened it a lot. I do not want to get deleted. Is there no way I could ask you to put in a kind word for my article at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Support for evolution?--Filll 14:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

Candorwein, we are under FA review for, among other things, violation of WP:LEAD. Restoring to a version that's going to lose us FA doesn't help. The head of FA said we need to define terms, so I restored to a version from a week ago that did: Between then, it was replaced with one from back in October that does not define terms. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Candorwein, I was just restoring to a version of a few days ago, because I discovered it had been reverted to one from October, and it was being heavily criticised in the FAR. That said, I see you have an improved version here from the one I used, so I'll re-restore to that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution (2)

I apologise if I was rude the other day. I hope I wasn't. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken at all. Candy 00:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am just glad to see things are progressing in a positive direction.--Filll 00:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Me too 8) Candy 00:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WatchlistBot

I'm sorry. I made a mistake, and ran the bot without checking the talk page first (which I usually do). There is an exclusion list, which will keep the bot from retagging a page. For the baseball project, it is located at User:WatchlistBot/Baseball. I have just added All Along the Watchtower to that list. I truly am sorry for the inconvenience. Ingrid 05:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

KK. Problem seems to be solveed now. We all make mistakes. Candy 07:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Page revert

I had no issue with your citation edits, but somewhere along the line you severely broke the page format, see [3], and while I couldn't track down the problem I just reverted it. IrisKawling 07:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Ok. I understand. Thanks. I guess I should try to be more dextrous and check the page more thoroughly. Candy 07:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] REGARDING YOUR UNNECESSARY RUDENESS AND ATTACKS ON OTHER WIKIPEDIA USERS ON JIMMY PAGE DISCUSSION PAGE

Why did you respond so rudely to my question regarding Jaco Pastorius jamming with Jimmy Page? Of course I've googled that information, I am not an idiot. The info just seems slightly implausible, so I was wondering if anyone had actually verified that the rumors. There was no need to link to one of the many sites "reporting" that jam session as fact (that was really obnoxious). Or, I suppose you're suggesting that I should believe everything I read as a result of a google search? I pity you. There's no need to be rude to someone asking a question before posting an edit...for crying out loud, if only everyone asked before editing Wikipedia pages!

Thank you for your anonymous comment anonymous. I believe you are referring to the comment,

"I read somewhere recently that Page collaborated (or at least jammed) with the amazing jazz bassist Jaco Pastorius. Does anyone more knowledgable about Page know if there is any truth to this? If so, it would definitely be a candidate for inclusion in the Post-Zep section...that would demonstrate a dynamically different side of Page's musical abilities (jazz fusion). I hope someone can help..."

I responded with a point that perhaps you should use google to locate such a reference and the very cruel remark that if you did not know how to use google you should get a friend to help.

Perhaps you don't like using your name and like anonymous comment? Perhaps you don't like citing sources? Perhaps you like to actually refer to anything specifically? Well, as you don't seem actually bothered to be specific I assume you are not bothered about being serious. I don't think you should be bothered about my rudeness but think about your lack of specificity and the fact YOU can't be BOTHERED. And no, imho it doesn't show a dynamically different side of Page's musical abilities. Perjaps YOU can help us by EXPLAINING what YOU mean. Candy 22:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A RESPONSE:

You said: Perhaps you don't like using your name and like anonymous comment?

-I asked a question before adding to an article. That's proper protocol. I'd seen rumors and all sorts of webpage/bootleg claims that Jimmy Page performed with Jaco...nothing credible and nothing actionable.

You said: Perhaps you don't like citing sources?

-I like citing sources. That's why I asked the question. You googled and linked to a non-reputable webpage, not a credible source. I had already done that myself, prior to your rude comment, many times. I was asking for credible information. That was clear.

You said: Perhaps you like to actually refer to anything specifically?

-This question does not make syntactical sense in English.

You said: Well, as you don't seem actually bothered to be specific I assume you are not bothered about being serious.

-I have no idea what this sentence is referencing. I have been very specific with my question and also very specific in addressing your unwarranted rudeness. My effort was to not add heresay to Page's website; you googled and linked to a non-credible source and rudely dismissed my comment on the Page Discussion page. You were rude, not me.

You said: I don't think you should be bothered about my rudeness but think about your lack of specificity and the fact YOU can't be BOTHERED.

-I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems that you are responding to your previous sentence, which didn't make any sense, so is this meant to create a conversation with yourself?

You said: And no, imho it doesn't show a dynamically different side of Page's musical abilities.

-To suggest that Jaco Pastorius is akin to any type/genre of music that Jimmy Page previously played or currently plays is a completely idiotic statement. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong and very uneducated. Jaco completely revolutionized the jazz world; he invented his own instrument by reformatting the existing model of the electric bass to generate a new tone...and his playing with Pat Metheney and with Weather Report ushered in a totally new type of jazz...dubbed "fusion". Jimmy Page has never been associated with any type of jazz, and, if you consider his work in the blues to be in the same ballpark as jazz, you've obviously never heard any of the mid-1970s through mid-1980s fusion that Jaco created...Page's ability to musically jam/communicate with Jaco in a live, or otherwise, setting highlights a different style for certain.

You said: Perjaps YOU can help us by EXPLAINING what YOU mean.

-(Presumably you mean "Perhaps"?) I've already explained pretty accurately with my question on the Page Discussion page; you might have convoluted things by being rude and by googling a non-credible site. Google is obviously not the best way to research or to find credible information. You suggested that I either (1) use google to "research" Page and Jaco (I already had, which is why I was asking for more of an "expert" opinion from someone who might have already researched the rumors, the different non-credible websites) OR (2) find a friend to show me how to use google (which was rude and unnecessary). Your suggestion that google be used at all implies that you believe that google should be used to locate credible citations for Wikipedia edits...anyone who uses google knows that alongside useful information a TON of absolute crap comes up in response to any search...

The suggestion that Google is a viable source of credible information to support citations is a flawed statement. As this is the supporting statement for your rude comment, your comment is easily dismissable...you have made a very silly and very uneducated assertion that google be used and be trusted to deliver factual information. Perhaps it is you who needs help from a friend in conducting research.

It shouldn't matter that I am anonymous...YOU MADE A PERSONAL ATTACK AGAINST MY INTELLIGENCE WITH YOUR COMMENTS. SHAME ON YOU! 72.84.195.236 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your IP address appears to have been blocked due to repeated vandalism. If you wish to discuss this further than please contact me when you have access to Wikipidia again. Candy 06:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I use a shared IP address. I had nothing to do with the vandalism, which, by the way, seems to have ceased and (knock on wood) not started again in 2007. A quick review of all of the 2007 contributions from this IP address, most of which were mine, confirms this fact. I'm not sure what else there is to discuss. You were unnecessarily rude, and I called you out on it and pretty much entirely dismantled your attempt at a response. We can keep on going on like this, or you can admit your fault and an apology might be a keen idea...

72.84.195.236 21:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for any rudeness I have causedd. Perhaps you would care to apologise for your shouting as well and lack of willingness to understandiand in addition, your attacks on me. I would suggest you register as well to prevent misunderstandings in future. Candy 21:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not shout (how can one shout in typeface?). I used capital letters to be firm. I am not pleased at all with the way you have treated me (as a fellow member of the Wikipedia community), and I have every right to voice that displeasure. I have not attacked you whatsoever, nor have I expressed any lack of willingness to understand...your initial comments were unreasonably rude and did not assume any sort of good faith, your response was aggressive and mean-spirited, and my line-by-line response to your comments was meant only to demonstrate how seriously I am taking your ill-advised behavior. Any claim that I have made against you, "uneducated", for example, I have supported by demonstrating how, using your exact words, you have expressed an "uneducated" opinion...that is not meant as an insult, simply as a statement of fact. It has been difficult to understand many of your responses simply because you type them so rapidly and so devoid of any copyediting that many of your statements don't make sense at all. It probably would have been best for you to not try to belittle me with your remarks in response to my initial question on the Page Discussion page...you should have assumed good faith and let an expert on Page and/or Jaco offer a confirmation/rebuttal of the numerous google-references to that alleged jam. You jumped in, seeing a chance to anonymously belittle someone, and you've gotten a little bit more in response than you planned. It's too late for you to try to save face, so rather than dig a deeper hole for yourself, why not just apologize and move on...no apologies with "but I want the last word, too". 72.84.195.236 01:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No actually I find you to be an obnoxious, arrogant bully. Someone who shouts (that's the accepted use of capitalisation) and explodes. somone who hides behind anonymity and makes wild speculations to try to belittle me. In turn, you defend yourself my using the phrase, "statement of fact". Well, that's not supported and either you know that or simply want to pretend otherwise.

I have never been anonymous on that page so I do not know how I could "anonymously belittle you". It's actually the other way around. Futhermore, I am an expert on Page. I also know about Pastorius and despite your assertion that I do not know who he is. You seem to lack understanding about the difference between fact and PoV. You believe I am uneducated but claim it is a fact. Go back and reread what I wrote and what you wrote. I think then you will see that perhaps you have jumped in with two feet and no foresight. Candy 08:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Candy and User choosing to remaing anonymous. I have been a Wikipedia user for several years now, and I ordinarily use my user name, but for now I'm staying signed off because I don't want to be dragged into this fray.

I'm writing now only to make an effort at unbiased third-party observation. I'm interested very much in Jimmy Page and in the often under-appreciate aspects of his musical diversity, his musical production projects (his lesser-known but very worthwhile contributions). This is how I've come in contact with your argument (first on the Page Discussion, then here).

Candy, as I am sure you are aware, Wikipedia is based upon the following tenets : (1) Be polite, (2) Assume good faith, (3) No personal attacks, and (4) Be welcoming. These are printed at the top of the Page Discussion for your review. Candy, you violated all of these tenets with your response to the anonymous question about Jaco/Page. The tenets are not listed as applying only to those with user names, they apply to the community of Wikipedia as a whole. In fact, you are very lucky that the User choosing to remain anonymous did not log in with a user name, as your actions (both with your initial response and in the aftermath) would give her/him excellent grounds for protesting your behavior and seeking your ban from active editing. You certainly owe the Anonymous User and the entire Page Discussion an apology for your behavior.

I've read the entire conversation, and I don't feel that the Anonymous User has been arrogant or a bully. In fact, the only comments verging on arrogance or bullying are written in response to your own mean-spirited remarks. Surely the Anonymous User has every opportunity to defend her/himself against your actions, especially considering that you began this quarrel with actions in strict violation of Wikipedia policy.

Perhaps the "uneducated" comment is over the line, but in all fairness, Candy, you were very direct and mean-spirited in suggesting (1) that google be used to gather information and (2) that Pastorius's collaboration with Page is unworthy of attention--the reason you give, using the words "in my opinion", does, in all fairness, seem less-than-educated as an opinion, considering what that collaboration means (huge figures in contemporary jazz and in rock coming together). For that matter, it is even significant that Page allegedly attended a Pastorius show, whether the jam actually occurred or not! It seems to me that the Anonymous User is suggesting that your dismissal of her/his suggestions, that your act of dismissal is "uneducated." That's a bit harsh, in terms of phrasing, but I think that your dismissal of her/his suggestions is, to say the least, irresponsible and unfriendly.

In my opinion, the Anonymous User suggested a reasonable addition to the Jimmy Page article, and, assuming good faith, was asking for an expert opinion to confirm the information before simply adding it. As you yourself claim to be an "expert" on Page, it probably would have been best to treat the question/request with respect, or to allow another editor/Page-expert to investigate and/or add the information to the page in an appropriate context. Your actions against this Anonymous User would likely discourage Wikipedia Users from asking questions before making edits; unwarranted edits and vandalism, as you know, occupy most of our time as Wikipedia editors. Surely you don't want to discourage pre-edit queries!

Possibly my comments are falling on deaf ears, you both seem quite angry. For the Anonymous User: I encourage you to continue querying before making edits, that is a useful skill and one that should be more frequently employed by Wikipedia users in general. I also encourage you to sign in with a User Name; that will give you a better leg to stand on when something like this dispute comes up (you will have more opportunity to seek mediation/arbitration). For Candy: I think, sincerely, that you need to take your own advice and re-read the entire conversation. You've violated the main tenets of Wikipedia Discussion forums and then continued to criticize an Anonymous User for responding to your unequivocably mean-spirited remarks and attacks. You need to apologize and move on. You, Candy, are in the wrong. Just accept that, apologize, and move on.

I'm not planning to bring this dispute to the attention of any Administrators, but I'd expect for both of you to heed these words carefully and to bury the hatchet.

For now, I'll sign with my IP address only. 128.172.155.80 15:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To second anonymous user,

I have reread. I don't see your point of view. If you feel taht strongly that you must interfere then report me to an admin. Candy 00:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP

Hi Candy,

I'm sorry you don't think that parapsychological peer-reviewed journals are science. They do, however, meet WP:V, and parapsychology is a field of science. If science has not considered a thing, then it is our responsibility to say so. Science can conditionally rejected something by doing experiments which, while meeting all requirements which those who say the experiment is reproducible have set forth, fail to reproduce the phenomena. If this is the situation, then it is our responsibility to communicate that also. However, science has not done this with EVP. The EVP introduction accurately states the situation -or it did the last time I reverted it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Martinphi (or is that Martinpsi) ;=) .

Thanks for your comment. I appreciate what you say. However, being published in a peer reviewed journal does not necessarily make it science (and that doesn't just go for parapsychology). On the other hand, I am a scientist and I'm open to possibilities.

My problem with the EVP article (apart from the strange way that the discussion is made - I've found it strange that my comments are discussed in the third person rather than directed at me and the fact one contributer referred to my comment on their user page as "shite" and deleted it without a response) is that it is written in a way to suggest these are phenomena that are scientifically valid. The proponent/skeptic angle is particularly confusing to me as it seem to make the article a battleground and therefore itself controversial. The article is written in a very sly way imho to boost EVP as being "a fact" and sideline controversy. I think arguing about the scientific validity of EVP is fine and wholesome. I think the way the article is written is weasly though. Now, you may disagree with my statement that there is no scientific evidence for these being paranormal phenomena (I added and it was wiped but I haven't gone to a revert as I need to consider some opinions). I will discuss that if you wish. The article itself imho simply needs a substantial rewrite. I think it is just badly written. I'll get back to the EVP discussion page at some time and may even attenpt a substantial restructuring myself. (After all, it can be reverted.) Candy 20:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this till now, because you responded here. The problem with a lot of paranormal articles is simply that those who are skeptical haven't really examined the evidence. I'm not saying that EVP or anything else is science. I'm just saying that it is a very deep field of study. And what happens is that people come along and believe the claims of CSI or other skeptical organizations, which is that they are defenders of science. They're not. They are just trying to debunk, not consider scientifically.

Whey you state that there "is no scientific evidence," that is not a strictly scientific thing to say. We don't know if there is. There might be someone who has absolutely proven it. Maybe they even did a study. If they sent the study to a peer-reviewed journal whose editors happened to be members of CSI- it would never have been published. The problem with the article is that we can't just state things like "It hasn't been considered." People who call themselves defenders of science, but are really pseudoskeptics, want to say it as if there is evidence against, which there isn't, of course. Anyway, there wouldn't be a problem if everything were stated in a strictly scientific manner (and if we left out partisan sources). Please if you respond, do so on the bottom of my talk page- thanks (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For response see _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} Candy 12:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Candy. I read your description of the EVP article (above) and must say I feel the same way. The article is (still) subtly written to suggest that "the jury's out" on the scientific validity of EVP because science hasn't examined it or commented on it specifically. You know that the scientific community does not bother commenting on fringe-y paranormal claims for which there are obvious non-paranormal explanations. IMO, this lack of comment should not be used as a loophole to make EVP seem as if it's one side of a legitimate scientific controversy, and give the work of pseudoscientists undue weight in the article. As you also know, WP:FRINGE tells us that the lack of peer-reviewed criticism on a subject should not be used as a justification for marginalizing (or removing) scientific criticism. And I disagree with Martin: it is not up to those who edit paranormal articles to study the work of fringe scientists in order to discover the "depth" of the subject. Lastly, the WP article should not be used as a platform for EVP proponents to make their case to the public that science has short-changed them and EVP needs further study. That's the job of Tom Butler and the AA-EVP site.--- LuckyLouie 06:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

HI LuckyLouie. Thanks for your comment. I was feeling rather alone in persuing EVP. I agree with what you say. There are a number of editors on that site who have decided to hijack the article in that they continually apply their own PoV hidden behind immediate and uncritical editing. I'm at a loss rather how to continue. I do feel though that the article would best be rewritten rather than minor changes especially this skeptic angle on it which as a scientist I don't feel familiar with. Science doesn't argue that EVP does or does not exist, it relies on evidence that it does exist. Candy 12:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with both of you that the article has undergone a large amount of POV pushing. At this point, I think bringing in more editors to get a wider consensus would be a good idea. I'm not sure if an article RfC would be the best, there has been similar pushing at many articles such as Psychic, Remote viewing, List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, now even things like Society for Psychical Research to name a few. Unfortunately, it seems like even if we can fix EVP, the pushing will just move on to the next batch of paranormal articles. I think a user conduct RfC may be more appropriate, what do you think? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

More editors would certainly help. What is a user conduct RfC BTW? Candy 13:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks Milo. The only person that I would consider this against though would be User:Davkal who seems to wipe any attempt at discussion on his talk page and labels the removal as "shite". Any attempt to talk to him seems fairly futile and he is a major PoV pusher on the EVP page. Who had you got in mind? Candy 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree about Davkal, also take a look at Special:Contributions/Martinphi, he's been pushing his POV pretty hard, edit warring over his changes, and pushing his edits even when consensus disagrees with him. Similar to what Davkal has been doing but unfortunately at more articles. Let me know what you think, thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, some people have made it no secret that their goal is to systematically remove or minimize skeptical content from paranormal articles. I am not that familar with Wikpedia procedure or how a User Conduct Rfc works. However, my gut instinct is that it would be better to focus any Rfc on the article content and not on individual editors. Candy I am especially interested in your thoughts on an outline for a rewrite of the EVP article. Just from a notability aspect: of the 65,000+ results Google returns for "EVP (or Electronic Voice Phenomena)", 90% of results are websites of people involved in the current ghost hunting/paranormal fad, small businesses pushing ghost hunting gear, authors pushing ghost hunting books, references to ghost hunting groups by local newspapers, and associated reality TV show programming. Only about 10% of results are websites about "scientific" aspects of EVP and/or "research" (and that includes skeptical as well as proponents commentaries). The way I see it, the article, as it is now, has wrongly focused itself on the 10%. --- LuckyLouie 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To give you an update, I've filed a sock puppet case against Martinphi: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi. I'll see how that pans out and if anything else is necessary. Davkal has filed for mediation on EVP. If you're interested in getting any other actions started on articles or individuals, let me know. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peacekeeping

I'm afraid I twarted your good attempt. Please don't hesitate to step in next time (hopefully thee won't be one) with more of your good humour. :) David D. (Talk) 20:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully it's all settled down now. 8) Candy 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Humpers Specimens of Beauty D'yer Mak'er Dancing Days Fire Party Andy Kershaw Richard Cole Chris Dreja Trevor Bolder Thunderstick Family of Free Love Stain (album) IB Group 6 subjects Igor Khoroshev Jim McCarty Bittersweet Motel I Love You But I've Chosen Darkness Harmony in My Head You Shook Me All Night Long

Cleanup Hard rock ASUS Born/Dead Merge Network Neighborhood Phish Head X-band radar Add Sources Tribute (song) Newton Heath Marketing Manchester Wikify Chris Squire Anarchy, State, and Utopia EZ-Street Expand Bear Lake (Idaho-Utah) Ordsall Hall Still The One (song)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)