User talk:Nealparr
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Zen garden award
 |
The Zen Garden Award | |
| I award you the Zen Garden Award, for extraordinary patience and virtue. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC) |
Fresh page...
[edit] 42- That's sad
I'm really sorry to see you go )=. I will be doing the same thing, to an extent, as soon as the parapsychology article is straightened out. And for the same reason. You're one of the best editors on here- maybe the best. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- There might be something to what the fundamentalists say: if you ain't got no spirituality, you're just mean. And if you ain't mean, what are you doing around here? I'm not so tired of arguing, but of getting ganged up on. I do pick the fights sometimes, but I don't like arguing with unreasonable people. I'd love it here if it weren't all about power. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Just couldn't break the habit
Good to have you back Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm just lurking. Not really actively editing right now. Though I'd love to re-write the psychic article because I really think it's just all wrong : ) There's a squabble over the definition being "A psychic is a person who has psychic abilities" and "A psychic is a person who allegedly has psychic abilities". Both take the wrong approach when you consider that the article hasn't really explained what psychic abilities are in theory. It's like saying "An apple is an object that has appleness" or "An apple is an object that allegedly has appleness." Talking about appleness would say that an apple is a red fruit that is juicy and eaten by people.
-
- I still maintain that parapsychology should not be the focus of the article.
-
- What I would like to do is start from scratch and talk about the term psychic being the idea that thoughts aren't confined to one's brain. Flesh that out before ever talking about nouns and adjective meanings. Explain the prevailing idea that thoughts are biochemical processes in the brain, borrow from consciousness articles to show the controversy and theories that suggest that thoughts aren't bi-products of the brain, then present the theory that thoughts aren't confined to the brain, and THEN mention that there are people who believe they can access other people's thoughts. All the while keeping the tone that this is not a mainstream theory because it really isn't. By doing it this way, there's no neutrality issues because it's just reporting on the theory of psychic abilities.
-
- --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 00:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ???
What would you do if I started a paranormal wiki? Cause, for example, there was a pretty good intro, which got deleted for whatever reason- in other words, it was too good to stand. Editors like you are totally wasted on here. I don't want to start something which is POV, but something where the rules allow good information to stand. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, not really popular. Not even popular. There aren't enough editors to make it popular, but it could be a great resource. I would envision it as mainly for parapsychology, and including some of the less-scientific aspects- like EVP for instance. With virtually the same rules as Wikipedia, only a separation of viewpoints. If you have a paranormal page, the presumption is that the thing is real. Then you have separate sections for controversy. That allows the paranormal to take its best shot before it is whacked.
It makes skeptics into useful citizens instead of merely trying to de-legitimize the paranormal by any means. But no fewer sources, no more POV. The rules would eliminate the so-called proponent-skeptic arguing- the point of contact would be in debate sections or separate "case making" sections, rather than the main article. Since everyone could say what they wanted in their own terms (within the limits of NPOV and sources), there would be no quarrel. There would be separate sections, and taken together they would be NPOV.
I already know about Mediawiki. I don't have the bandwidth, and the instructions out there are horrid as far as I could find, but I found this site, which does it for you. I am considering it for a personal website, if nothing else, as it would be easy to transfer stuff from Wikipedia without re-doing the refs etc. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- How much do you have to know to manage a site with MediaWiki? The extent of my computer knowledge is a little html, CSS, and a very simple batch script or two- just enough to back the computer up to a CD, or to rip a CD and convert to mp3- stuff like that. Using Windows. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Apologies
My apologies for any insult I may have given. I was under the misconception that the quoted lines added to the article were taken directly from another source, but I was apparently wrong and you are the one who actually wrote the entry based on that source. Any definition of psychic that uses the word "brain" is suspect to me, but I understand where you're coming from on that. It just seems there's a better way to put it...besides...well..."brain"... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 04:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mediumship
Oh, very nice! You've taken it to a whole new level. I knew there was something special about the topic, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it and was doing a little more research on Spiritism and Spiritualism, which is still a flourishing religion. Your input was a perfect direction to take the discussion in! It also gives credence to my original desire to keep Medium (spirituality) separate from Mediumship. Do you think we should separate the subject back into two articles? Dreadlocke ☥ 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
