User talk:Elembis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 There's a name for people like you 2 Good work on Rationalists 3 John Edward 3.1 Mediation 4 Skunk ape 5 Zammit 6 Thank you for the compliment 7 Randi and Zammit 8 Request for Mediation 9 Thank you 10 Couch of Power 11 Would you mind briefly weighing in on "psychic" 12 Edward photo 13 Mediation 14 Birth and death 15 Another Edward pic 16 Psychic 17 Nine Men's Morris 18 Ethics & EP 19 Hey, thanks!

[edit] There's a name for people like you

Hi there. I stumbled across your user page and read that you contribute mostly mechanical edits, such correcting grammar and the like. Most of my edits are along those lines as well. Apparently, we're both WikiGnomes! --Impaciente 21:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work on Rationalists

Thanks for your good work; catagorization of rationalists and rationalist organizations.--Pinaki ghosh 14:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Edward

Hi I was interested in your edit on the weaselish paragraph on John Edward, where do you start with citation on an issue like Edward, type in "John Edward" and Fraud on google and you get huge amounts of results, there are too many to quantify. He has also been lampooned on a variety of shows, these are fact not speculation, I believe the editing of these facts is non NPOV.Belbo Casaubon 21:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Response: User talk:Belbo Casaubon#John Edward.

Original message: User talk:Belbo Casaubon#John Edward 2.

I am sorry that you found my response at Talk:John_Edward#Pro_Edward_POV uncivil, however I note that your response again points to Rules and Guidelines, I find your approach disrespectful, and borderline Passive Aggressive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Belbo Casaubon (talk • contribs) 13:12, January 2, 2007 (UTC).

Hi Elembis, I see you've been fighting a one-man battle on the WP:WTA front for the John Edward article. I took some time off for the holidays, but I'll be back editing tomorrow. Just to let you know support is on it's way! Dreadlocke ☥ 00:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to avoid "fighting" in any "battle", of course, but I do forward to the issue being settled one way or another, hopefully at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid#Use of "purported" in conjunction with "psychic medium" or, if that section doesn't gather responses which help us reach a consensus, a request for comment. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the holidays! — Elembis 01:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! The holidays were great! I'm still recovering! I think the WTA guideline is very clear about the use of "claims" or "purported", that they should be avoided because they add bias to an article:

“These all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable—at the very least the person who said it! Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications.”

“[purportedly] should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear.” (The "alleger" in this case is who's doing the doubting, not the one making claims")

Articles like the one on John Edward are exactly the reason this guideline was created in the first place, to stop editors from using such loaded words to add bias to an article. From what I see so far, the opposing editors who want to add "purported" or whatnot are actually misreading the guideline and "cherry-picking" parts of it to try and back their views. It's just wrong. But then again, maybe I'm wrong - but it just doesn't look like I am. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Main article: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Edward

Thanks for putting that in. I was actually hoping Belbo would do it, it's a good learning experience for a new editor. I've already agreed on the mediation page. I also appreciate your attempts to mediate, but I felt official mediator involvement would be better - at least to help me accept it if I'm wrong... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 19:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being involved. I always appreciate your comments and your civility, even when we disagree (and even when you're wrong ;)). — Elembis 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Whaa? Me wrong? Nevah! I just allow others to win to make them feel better about themselves... :) Hey, it's good to work with you Elembis, you're very civil and fair yourself...even, ah, on that oh-so-rare occasion we disagree... and thanks for the kind comments. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skunk ape

Thanks for cleaning up one of the worst cryptozoological articles I've seen! Totnesmartin 12:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zammit

I quite agree with you on the Mediumship article entry for Victor Zammit, the only reason I left it was because it was a nice counterpoint to the JREF "million dollar prize." The Zammit entry is also in the Medium (spirituality) article, you may want to tag that one too. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I should perhaps have removed the material entirely, but it may be better for other editors to have a shot at fixing it first. Thanks for the heads-up! — Elembis 05:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I too think it's the best idea to add the {{fact}} tag if possible, helps to spare the feelings of the editor who put the uncited information there and nip bad feelings in the bud - which fits the reasoning in the second paragraph of WP:V#burden of evidence. Nice job.Dreadlocke ☥ 05:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the compliment

See: User talk:Merzul#Argument from nonbelief

The timing was excellent... I have spent a lot of time today arguing on a talk pages about very irrelevant issues. Your comment really reminded me where I should focus my efforts. Thank you! --Merzul 19:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Randi and Zammit

Oh, sorry about putting your signature on that. Just looked like a bunch of code to me. My point in putting in the citation request, and in putting the same supercilious ("factual") phrase "To date, no one has passed the challenge" on the Zammit one, was just that these are not genuine objections to the reality, or unreality, of paranormal phenomena. Randi's done a lot of good in putting the frauds on the run, but at the same time, in a more serious debate such as an encyclopedia, I'm not sure that the challenge, as opposed to Randi's other work, deserves mention. But if you really think we have to have them, let's give them equal footing. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

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

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for the CSS help on my signiture. If you're interested, check out my Sandbox. Some contributions, comments, examples, or ideas would be appreciated.

[edit] Couch of Power

Original message: User talk:Shuffdog#Couch of Power

Hi, you bring up a good point. I'd seen the game played in several youth activity settings, but I've never looked it up to see if it was already in a book that I could cite. Similarly, I'd pulled knowledge from memory about the games Mao (game) and Assassin - aha, I see. There is an 'unverified research' tag on the Assassin page as well.

Wait. There are 3 sources on the Couch of Power page, now. Does something else need sourced, do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shuffdog (talk • contribs) 03:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

I think it's adequately sourced now, but if you come across any better sources it would be great to have them. — Elembis (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Would you mind briefly weighing in on "psychic"

See this edit

You were correct to move my {{totally-disputed}} tag to the scientific views. It would be appreciated if you weighed in to support my edit.

i removed a line, "The issue of whether or not psychic abilities are real is controversial within science." This is an extraordinary claim that the scientific community is split over the existence of psychics. It is backed by absolutely zero evidence. (1) This runs afoul of WP unsourced statement rules and (2) It's completely bogus. There is no psychic faculty at Stanford, MIT, Harvard etc... (3) The existence of some parapsychological association with several dozen members running around doesn't create a controversy. Evolution isn't controversial within the biological sciences and there are a LOT more than 30 creationists running around. -- Mgunn 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edward photo

See: Image:EdwardFace.jpg

Where do you suppose that photo is from? Looks like a publicity photo from his website: [1]. If we can't use it, I can scan one of his book cover photos, that's covered under fair use (sorry for the pun...completely unintentional...;) Dreadlocke ☥ 18:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A scanned promotional image from a book would be a nice substitute if the current publicity photo is deleted. However, since a fair use image must be included in an article for it to remain on Wikipedia, you might want to wait until the current image is deleted (if it is deleted) so there will be a void for the scanned image to fill. — Elembis (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent logic. I'll await the outcome before scanning and uploading. Since the current photo is a publicity shot, it should be no problem to keep - but how does one prove it's a publicity photo? His site has the usual copyright blurb...Dreadlocke ☥ 19:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems they're attacking all the Edward photos:[2] Dreadlocke ☥ 18:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think all you need do is fill in the info here: [3]. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you use the Fair Use: Promotional Material tag for the Edward images? Maybe we should also look into getting a press pack from Edward's publicity folks. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Just fyi, I've indicated that I'm ready to rumble on the mediation: User_talk:^demon#John_Edward_mediation. I'm not comfortable editing the mediation request hold, since it's under the Decision of the Mediation Committee section. I'm also a little unclear on why one of the other editors seems so desperate to edit that one sentence post-mediation, or perhaps he doesn't understand that he can edit the rest of the article while this mediation (of esssentially one word) is going on, or on hold. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birth and death

Thanks for the explanation! If the reason for removal was indeed, MOS:DATE#Dates_of_birth_and_death, then it should have been moved instead of being re-moved...or at least an edit summary explanation! Nice work, you're handy to have around! Dreadlocke ☥ 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Edward pic

Are you just awaiting the OTRS ticket number for this photo: [4]. The face photo has been deleted, and I'm not sure why that one lapsed, but I'd like to make sure this one doesn't follow. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychic

See edits [5] and [6]

Sorry I accused you of being patronizing. I was at the time under the impression that they were trying to put all things psychic under the category of "Purported." Anyway, I was steamed, and should have AGFed. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, but none is necessary. It's often hard to tell what is a patronizing message and what isn't, so don't worry about it. =) — Elembis (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nine Men's Morris

On my browser (IE7), the graphics cover up parts of the text. Can this be fixed?  OneWeirdDude 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics & EP

Hi there, you recently redirected Ethics and evolutionary psychology. I may gotten mixed up, but I thought there was a significant content on that page, including a list of further reading, and some discussion on the talk page. I can't see any of this now, on the redirect page or the target page. Can you help clarify at all? EverSince 10:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Response: User talk:EverSince#Ethics and evolutionary psychology

Thanks for your reply (not sure whether to reply there or here). I'm glad you saved a copy of the article - at some point I'll transfer some stuff from there to the evolutionary ethics article (which I agree is probably the better title, if more potential confusion with eugenics-type views). Assuming that you don't disagree that some of the issues and books are directly on the topic... (despite how that main pro-deletion person seems to have been portraying things). I'm annoyed I didn't notice any of this deletion debate going on, despite the page being on my watchlist and the deletion tag having been added. Be curious to know if there were comments made on the talk page because, having previously quickly rewritten the article from when it had REALLY bizarre content, I'd asked for opinions on the suitability of the page title but no reply for a while. EverSince 22:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, thanks!

I only now noticed that you reverted Belbo's removal of my barnstar back in December, and talked to him about it. Thank you very much! He got blocked for NPA, and I was just reading through his talk page to see what other "interactions" he has had with other editors, and saw your comments! Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)