User talk:Martinphi/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Got your email

I am acknowledging that I received your email. You already know the appropriate on wikipedia venues to use. Use them if you feel the evidence justifies it. GRBerry 20:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Seicer

After hearing private responses from not only SA and other parties, and after reviewing the edit histories of all parties involved, I feel that my comments may have been a bit misdirected. While I feel that the "moron" comment may have been taken out of context, and that it was not applied towards another editor but instead to a source or other individual, it has the direct effect of criticising those who acknowledge the source -- yourself and Tom, for instance. In other words, while it was not a direct uncivil comment, it was still one that was directed towards a group of individuals that includes those who hold belief in EVP. Please accept my apologies.

As a side note, SA's block was reduced to 12h. seicer | talk | contribs 23:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you will reconsider retirement from WP and will come back to the project at a future date with a fresh, clear start. Please do not let other rogue editors disillusion you. And I loved the quote from Jimmy so much I decided to post it on my talk page, because it is wholly appropriate :) seicer | talk | contribs 05:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, that is really kind and really appreciated [1]. I will be back from time to time, and I do have hope that things will change some time. My experience would have been different if I didn't edit mostly on fringe areas. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

What did you mean with Science doesn't really even have to be considered as such. Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 05:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


We follow the sources. If an article is about a scientific field, then the consensus in that field will be most notable in the sources (given that it will be published in the scientific journals that cover that field, see WP:V and WP:OR). You could write the article properly without having any opinion at all on whether science is the right way of doing things. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If we are writing about a field like biology, the consensus of the field is made up primarily by biologists. When we are writing about a field like homeopathy, the consensus of the field is not made up primarily of psychiatrists. —Whig (talk) 05:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL. Somebody knows how to stay out of trouble (-: ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really kidding, though. There is really good encyclopedic information which we should be adding about homeopathy by homeopaths, and that should form the bulk of the content, with criticism also included as it is important to present all significant views. —Whig (talk) 06:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course. Only on WP would one be twisted into questioning that most of an article on a subject should actually be about the subject. With proper attribution. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a thought experiment, but I want to indicate that the idea "articles should predominantly report practioners in the subject" may not always work: for example, an article about fraud should not be written by con artists, and should not treat them as reliable sources (although some retired con artists have contributed to the FBI etc). It's a common fallacy that only people who experience something are qualified to write about it. Contrast with Emile Durkheim's book on Suicide. Pete St.John (talk) 18:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't treat convicted liars as reliable sources, no. So? —Whig (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It sounds good theoretically, but I can't think of an example where we would be in trouble. Your example doesn't work, because the literature on fraud is about fraud, and probably not written by con artists. And certainly, an attributed opinion from cons would be quite appropriate. And if the literature were divided between the opinions of cons and the opinions of those who study cons, then with proper attribution, we should include both. And if the literature were divided between the scientific field of studying cons, and the literature of cons themselves, then if the article were on "con artists," the article would cover both sets of lit with ATT, but if the article were on "con artists (scientific study)" then it would be mainly science. Same as with the article on "Creationism" versus the article on "Evolution." ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A thought...

Martin, I've looked very briefly at some of your writing and edits, well and thoughtfully constructed, IMHO. I thought you might want to consider reviewing some of these references. 12.205.252.91 (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I've seen at least the first one of those. But I believe that the issue is not pathological skepticism, but an attempt to subvert the real rules of Wikipedia. People have a right to their beliefs, whether they be pathological belief or disbelief, or some reasonable alternative. That isn't the issue. The issue is fully one of WP rules, and it never has and never will do any good to go telling people who have pathological beliefs that their beliefs are pathological. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Till later

I like what you say on your userpage and on you FAQ about neutrality. I have no clue if we were to agree in practice as well, as I have not looked at your edits, but hope you will be back.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi...

I'm just stopping by to say hello. CivilityApologist (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, people seem to be coming out of the woodwork to do something about something. Do I sense lightning in the air? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consciousness causes collapse merger

I missed the original discussion, but the nature of the merger seems quire unjustified to me. There is basically no discussion at all of the original subject matter of CCC on Quantum Mysticism, (unlike Quantum mind, and Copenhagen interpretation. The reader is effectively being told that the subject is nonsense without being told why. That is not how good encyclopedias work. Some sort of merger might have been a good idea, but this is WP:POV and censorship.1Z (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:ScienceApologist

Since you were in our discussions at Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon, I thought I'd inform you that I put an AE report in with regards to ScienceApologist. The report is here. Cheers 130.101.152.155 (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MfD nomination of your pages

Some pages you created have been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Martinphi pages and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AE

WP:AE#User:Martinphi. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of WTB

You implied that SA was the reason that WTB got re-protected. I think you should go look over the edit history of the final night of WTB before the last protection. It's true that SA was the last editor before protection, but he was restoring the version of the lead that you, olive, and I had finally come to terms over. Wndl42 had been continuously introducing edits that he knew were controversial, even after specifically being asked to stop.Kww (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

KWW, you keep saying things like this. It isn't true <--(refactored by Martinphi) because:
  • Edit war #1 started here by SA resulting in protection
  • ...and continued here by KWW (please note "baiting" in edit summaries)

And you will recall then who started with the false claims of consenus. Hint...it wasn't me. WNDL42 (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin, as you can see...your assessment was correct and assertions otherwise are nothing but smoke screens. WNDL42 (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks- I suspect you are right, but haven't reviewed the diffs (: ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that you just look over the edit history yourself, and draw a conclusion. I know that I would have chosen a different set of edits (except for the one where Wndl42 shows SA restoring the text that you, I, and Olive had agreed on, and that one where I did that revert, which Wndl42 refers to as me "baiting" him). Pay careful attention to what happened after you and Olive encouraged me to revert Wndl42's changes.Kww (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you're correct, at least in that WNDL was edit warring and going against what we'd so carefully worked out. That was not justified, and I also think he should have sought more consensus on the talk page (just in general). SA was equally to blame, edit warring instead of discussing. One has to take account of the fact that his stock of AGF was exceedingly low on Bleep, and thus behaving like that, even if slightly justified, was a very bad move. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Bleep

For what it's worth, I thought your suggested edit here was perfectly acceptable. Indeed I also (happen to) agree with you on the 'Quantum mysticism' bit - for stylistic reasons of course. But I'm sure everyone could agree on the former. With every kind wish The Rationalist (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banned users

I'm going to formally ask you not to encourage and enable Davkal (talk · contribs) to continue evading his ban. He's indefinitely blocked and effectively banned, and his input is not welcome under any but possibly the most innocuous circumstances (vandalism reverts, spelling corrections, etc). He's clearly socking specifically to continue his dispute with ScienceApologist. Please don't facilitate this abuse. If you persist, I'm going to raise the issue as a possible violation of your ArbCom probation against disruption. MastCell Talk 05:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Be assured, that all good ideas are welcome at the interview pages, and will remain so. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Mastcell, I think that is a "Yes I will continue to encourage and enable Davkal as I see fit". Shot info (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That's right. If people object to his ideas being under his name, I will continue to insert them under my name, if and only if I personally think they are worthy. Wiki doesn't "punish," it insists on good behavior. If Davkal is behaving well, he deserves to be heard. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There are multiple incorrect statements there. Davkal is not "behaving well" - I haven't seen him reverting vandalism, or bringing articles up to FA status, or being a constructive influence. I've only seen him create socks to pursue a narrow agenda and target specific editors whom he dislikes. A ban is not "punishment" - it's a decision that an editor's influence is such that Wikipedia is better off without their input, and it is intended to protect the encyclopedia, not to punish.
A larger issue is that Davkal is essentially acting as a "bad cop" to your good cop in this particular endless dispute. Davkal creates a sock and makes an inflammatory comment in support of your viewpoint, then you say "Well, Davkal should have been more civil, but he has an excellent point upon which I'd like to amplify." It makes a mockery of WP:CIVIL to operate this way, and strikes me as gaming the system. I certainly find it hard to take what you have to say about WP:CIVIL seriously while you continue to relish this good cop-bad cop dynamic. MastCell Talk 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And I find it extremely difficult to take your high tone seriously considering how you defend ScienceApologist and JzG- talk about a good cop/bad cop dynamic. However, I have already bowed both to you and to the community in not inserting any comments by Davkal under his own name. If he wants to email me or something with his ideas, and I personally want to take the responsibility for putting them in under my name, there should be no objection to that- not to mention the fact that there isn't anything you can do about it.
I'm quite unhappy that Davkal acts as he does, because he knows the sources well, and he would be a real power on Wikipedia if he behaved differently. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Where do I "defend" ScienceApologist? I seem to recall suggesting that his conduct be reviewed carefully at your ArbCom ([2]). To the extent that I "defended" him, it was in the context that his misbehavior did not excuse yours ([3]). If I've been running around Wikipedia defending him, please refresh my memory, ideally with diffs rather than repeated assertions. I also don't defend Guy's excesses - I feel, as do most at the RfC, that he's crossed the line quite a few times and needs to change his approach fundamentally. On the other hand, Guy and Davkal are not especially comparable in terms of positive contributions to the encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 21:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As I remember it, you've defended SA at AN/I and AE- for example, always having the opinion that his actions should be taken out of context (if one drills down to the nub of the argument). As far as defending JzG, you have walked the tightrope well, yet still defended him:
"When I started on this project, Guy was a clear and resounding voice of common sense who was willing to take on the really tough tasks. For every iffy or questionable administrative action listed above, I could list a number of times where Guy cut a difficult Gordian knot with a bold if slightly outside-of-policy action which few or no other admins were willing to undertake.[...] I don't think I'm alone in saying that in many ways Guy was a role model for me when I started here.[...]" etc. etc.
I'm not here to do the AN/I game and give a specific diff of you saying "I defend Guy and JzG." I was talking about the general effect of your edits, and I defend the propriety of seeing the larger picture on Wikipedia, not just what can be pinned down to individual edits. I stated my opinion of this larger picture. One of the main problems with admins on WP is that they won't take action on the basis of a larger picture, but have to be shown videos of the criminal committing the crime and have his DNA on the weapon before they will say that he really might have done it. If it's not obvious, then I'd like to see you advocate that SA's ArbCom sanctions be enforced. Take a good hard stand against what Raul486 did. Do those things, and I'll come groveling to you on my knees and beg forgiveness for ever doubting that you were unbiased. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As a courtesy notice, I've raised this issue for feedback at WP:AN/I. MastCell Talk 21:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And on the subject of bias, funny how you have seen all sorts of abuses by SA and JzG, and not reported them. You haven't blocked Guy even once, and surely you knew. Weren't you one of the admins who said something consolling when another admin did block Guy recently? I don't have the diffs now. When have you ever called in an unbiased admin to look at SA's behavior? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

People tend to insist on diffs as a defense against proof by assertion. It's analogous to a court examining actual evidence rather than relying solely on which of the two attorneys makes a more eloquent statement. I'm not going to respond to a series of accusations if you can't even be bothered to look at their supposed basis in fact. How can I defend some vague comment you think sounds like the sort of thing I might have said once? Look at the diffs I presented, at least - you saw me stating that ArbCom should take a careful look at ScienceApologist during the recent case. When have I ever asked an "unbiased" admin to look at SA's behavior? "No comment on the alleged incivility in the first two diffs; I'll leave that for another admin." Five days ago. Guy was a role model for me in a lot of ways when I started here, and I doubt I'm alone in that respect - you quoted me correctly. I've seen him shrug off the kind of harassment that would send me running for the hills in an instant, and I've seen him improve the encyclopedia in a lot of ways, some obvious and some not so obvious. That's why I'm saddened that it's come to the point where such a large segment of the community disapproves of his approach, though I'm hopeful he can change it in response to the feedback, just as I was hopeful at your long-ago RfC. MastCell Talk 22:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, "alleged incivility in the first two diffs; I'll leave that for another admin." seems to me to be a subtle defense. Especially as the two diffs are not "alledged" incivility. This is an example of you defending SA by not taking context into account- a context which you know very very well. Like I said, why not make a statement that "SA is a disruptive editor who constantly breaks his ArbCom restrictions on civility, and gives every indication of continuing to persue this behavior?" Then make some statement about me if you feel it is justified. But in light of the fact that, from my point of view, you tend to defend SA and go after me, I just don't see you as unbiased. You've made statements about how disruptive and generally naughty I am. Have you made similar statements -stronger or at least equal ones- about SA? If you have, then perhaps I'm not being fair to you. Have you ever reported SA for anything? Have you blocked him? Have you said you thought he deserved a block? Have you blocked JzG? Have you said you thought he deserved a block? If you aren't biased, it's a really funny dynamic.
I can however say this: of the admins who follow SA around and defend him, you're the most unbiased, in my opinion. You're the best admin of the bunch. I've heard good things about you as well. I just think you have a real softspot for SA. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Er, thanks? I think? There's both a compliment and a repetition of an unsupported assertion in there. You know, my first interaction with SA was this love note. I'm not part of the civility-is-useless wave - I just think that "civility" goes beyond using flowery or indirect language. I also think that blocks for incivility and "civility parole" are useless ideas. Blocking people doesn't make them more civil - at least, I've never seen it work that way, though I've seen the reverse enough times. Civility parole just encourages a culture where people are running to the noticeboard every day or two with the latest potentially uncivil diff, hoping for a block - it encourages people to use WP:CIVIL as a weapon, which I think is one of the underlying issues here.
I think (though I haven't looked, so maybe I'm off-base) that if you look through my logs you'll see that I've never or almost never blocked anyone for "incivility" (egregious personal attacks, maybe, but that's a different kettle). In a collaborative project, incivility is largely self-punishing. ScienceApologist would be much more effective at advancing his obvious agenda if he could bring himself to be civil. I think the same is true of Guy, though I'd replace "obvious agenda" in his case. MastCell Talk 23:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, you certainly have my agreement on civility, at least in most cases- I'm not as concerned about civility as about disruption and agendas. I think incivility is so extreme in some cases that something has to be done. We might disagree on what SA's agenda actually is, of course. I think incivility often goes along with disruption and edit warring, and I think that admins don't enforce those things enough. Thus, civility complaints stand in for a lot of other stuff which admins wont take action on, and should. The problem is that I really do see bias, and I doubt that you really disagree with me here: there are some people who disrupt all the time, and nothing happens to them because of their position or their friends. Admins act like puffballs, just like SA says. They don't have to abuse tools to fix this.
Yeah, I don't think of you as a bad admin, it's just that of old I think you've come after me an not SA, for no other reason that I know of except that you agree with SA's POV. Even in the beginning (before I modified the way I act) he was far more disruptive than I was. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
More or less disruptive, I dunno. I think (and this is just my opinion, but I'm being honest with you) that you both relish the combative, mano-a-mano, gamesmanship side of Wikipedia more than is healthy. I don't really have any content issues with you - I doubt we edit very many articles in common, and I agree with some of your content points (for example, it's just silly to call someone a "purported" psychic - any thinking reader recognizes the connotations of "psychic"). It's interesting, though - that's actually why I asked the one question I asked at your interview (though I don't think it got picked up by Zvika). I think that both overly credulous or promotional material on "fringe" topics and rigid and reflexive hostility to anything outside the scientific "mainstream" are harmful to the encyclopedia. I was genuinely curious to hear yours and SA's thoughts on where the balance is right now, and which direction we should err in if we have to.
Personally, I think that while neither extreme is desirable, the encyclopedia suffers more in its goal to be taken seriously as a reference work from pandering overmuch to "fringey" ideas. You can never trust someone to diagnose their own biases, but to the extent that I've gone easier on SA than you, perhaps that underlies it.
You're obviously a very intelligent, insightful, and forcefully articulate person, and I think it would be interesting and enjoyable to have a few beers and a conversation with you. As to your impact on Wikipedia, I'm ambivalent about that on a good day, but that's how things go here, and it's just my opinion. I regret that things tend to get personalized very quickly around here, and to the extent that I've contributed to this, I apologize. MastCell Talk 03:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I can't comment on every related action, but as to most of what I read from you on the topic of so-called "enabling" or "proxying" of a banned user, and provided that you understand you are responsible for whatever you pass on, you are on the right track as to reporting ideas or suggestions from a blocked or banned user. It is not "proxying," whether you attribute the ideas or not, if you take responsibility for the content as being appropriate. As I wrote in AN/I, if a blocked user slanders somebody, and there is no benefit to the project in reporting it on-wiki, you would properly be held responsible for passing it on. But if a blocked user makes a suggestion you think useful to the project, you can certainly pass it on, taking responsibility for it as your own (i.e., you are agreeing with it and making it as if it were your own proposal), even as you properly attribute it to the source. A proxy, as used in what you were accused of, is simply a meat puppet for a banned user, and is thus blockable. I haven't seen that you were charged with this, but with a much vaguer charge of "enabling." --Abd (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I knew that is the way it should work, but I've never come across this problem before on WP. Some of the comments sounded close to a violation of freedom of association and free speech, to me. It's great to have your input (: ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Possibly useful reading. MastCell Talk 04:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interview

Hi! You will find the questions for your interview here. Thanks for agreeing to do this. --Zvika (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected Edit

Please say "yea" or "nay" here. If I ask an admin to edit the page in a protected state, I'd like to have one handy section for him to look at to determine people's stance.Kww (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Hey

I'm probably going to contribute an outside view, but there is a lot more that I am going to write about him. Uconnstud (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interview again

Hi! To avoid any chance of unfairness in the interview, it has been suggested that you email your responses to me rather than posting them on the interview page. That way, there will be no issue of someone posting his answer first, and giving the other a chance to respond in his interview. Whether you choose to do this or to just post your responses on the interview page, I remind you to please complete the interview by Tuesday. Thanks, --Zvika (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Just wanted to let you know that ScienceApologist has emailed his responses to me. I hope you will email your response too so I can proceed to integrate and wrap up the interview. Have a nice day, --Zvika (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The edit to Don't take the bait?

Martin, isn't disruptive (agenda-driven or otherwise) still disruptive? I don't think agenda-driven or otherwise adds much, if anything. I will not revert because it is not a big issue, I leave it to you. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interview question

Hi, you wrote in your interview: "But it isn't Wikipedia's mission to correct social ills (there should be such an area, IMO)." I confess that I could not understand what you are referring to here. Do you mean that it's not WP's mission to improve the state of scientific literacy? And what does "there should be such an area" mean? Thanks for clarifying, --Zvika (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Integrated interview

Hi! I have placed a semi-final draft of the integrated interview here. I made several editorial changes to the interviews to improve the flow of the text and make it more appropriate for community-wide publication. Specifically, I removed several references (by both interviewees) to specific incidents where, in my opinion, the interviewee was being impolite, or just overly specific; I removed one question (on RS) which I think did not result in interesting responses; and I have made several other stylistic adjustments, including changes to the text of the interview questions. I would appreciate it if you could carefully read through the final interview and make sure that I did not misrepresent your opinions. For your convenience, here is a diff with the main changes I made. Please get back to me by Sunday, 09:00 UTC at the latest, so that I can make the deadline of the next Signpost issue. Thanks again for your cooperation, --Zvika (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

can this page be turned into something of use since he retired? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki443556 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bleep

Can you detail your objections to the "New Age Reception" section?Kww (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Lerner

Did you intend to restore the faculty webpage and blog post used as criticism that Doc glasgow just removed from the article? John254 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Truzzi

Regarding this edit, please provide me with Truzzi's words (regarding dishonesty) to that effect. -- Fyslee / talk 15:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is it. Anyway, another source could be found.
  • Skeptical Odysseys: Personal Accounts by the Leading Paranormal Inquirers edited by Paul Kurtz, Prometheus Books, 2001
Anyway, the quote is,
  • "They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts. Then, if the experiment is reputable, they say it's a mere anomaly."
Here is another good source http://www.tricksterbook.com/truzzi/Tributes/IRVA-Aperture.html
Thanks for looking this up. Very interesting. The quote certainly describes a devious form of behavior which is often done unconsciously (and therefore not really "dishonest"), but nonetheless improper. You could use it as a source for "block honest inquiry" in the Debunker article. I'd back you on that one. Good work. Do you have a URL source?
The skeptical and scientific community has moved on from Truzzi's POV, and is more open to setting limits to just how far investigation should proceed in matters that are too far out, or have been investigated over and over again. Truzzi himself hinted at this:
  • "Evidence in science is always a matter of degree and is seldom if ever absolutely conclusive. Some proponents of anomaly claims, like some critics, seen unwilling to consider evidence in probabilistic terms, clinging to any slim loose end as though the critic must disprove all evidence ever put forward for a particular claim." [4]
I think he would agree with CSI that there comes a point where the probability for some things is so slim that further investigation is pointless. Naturally you and I might disagree on precisely which subjects have reached that point, but I think you understand what I mean. The problem of pseudoskepticism is when it becomes a habit, rather than normal human nature, when scientific skeptics in exasperation make bombastic statements and forget to remain agnostic in their statements. In that Truzzi is correct, and scientific skeptics still recognize this statement of his as a classic:
  • "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."
One of my favorite quotes (especially the last sentence) on pseudoskepticism is found in the article:
  • Groups sometimes accuse each other of pseudoskepticism. Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation"[1] puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary[2] argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies."[3]
Carroll also has this to say about Truzzi:
  • "... Truzzi maintained that the true skeptic is a seeker rather than one who arrives at a position. As such, he was out of tune with the vast majority of skeptics, who believe that it is appropriate to take a position when the evidence warrants it." [5]
It's pretty easy for skeptics to carelessly go too far and assert counterclaims, when they aren't obligated to make such counterclaims. They can take the high road and just demand more evidence of an extraordinarily strong form. Truzzi was a true skeptic. We lost a great man.
It is likewise easy for believers in fringe POV to go too far and persevere, "clinging to any slim loose end." -- Fyslee / talk 02:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Association for Skeptical Investigation website
  2. ^ Skepdic article on positive pseudo-skeptics
  3. ^ Robert Todd Carroll "Internet Bunk: Skeptical Investigations." Skeptic's Dictionary


I agree with everything you say. Yeah, in common speech and even sometimes in WP we could go so far as to state things as fact, even when there is some controversy. Like "the earth is round." We would disagree on the exact boundaries of where we could state such facts, but if it were anywhere else besides WP, we could probably easily agree. I have always been impressed with your statements of NPOV, like the one on your userpage, even though I have disagreed in practice.

Let's see if the discussion on the NPOV page couldn't lead to a new day in WP, because I think it would be a relief to both of us if policy were made crystal clear about fringe stuff. I will support any move to make mainstream science the POV of WP- I'll argue for it if anyone comes along to support that move. And I think even if there is a statement against SPOV, that would be good for you as well, since then you'd know exactly where the WP community really stands. You could then try to change their mind (knowing what that mind really is) or not participate. But it would be good no matter what happened. What I won't support is anything which will allow the continued dissension. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A meeting of the minds! Love it. BTW, I have just added a ref and refined the statement at the Debunker article. I hope that improves it. -- Fyslee / talk 03:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It's very nice (; ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another idea for your input

Ok since you are a bit shy about your voice, and have not yet responded to my idea about altering your voice electronically so you are unidentifiable, how about this. Why not have you listen to one of these programs (without you talking) and then when there is a point you want to make, or a question you want answered, you could respond by IM (instant messenger)? At that point, someone could then read out your response (or comment). What do you think?--Filll (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Filll, the attention is flattering, but I just don't see the need- can't even get the print interview any attention. What program was it anyhow? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at [6].You can listen to previous recorded programs. Or you could eavesdrop on any of the upcoming programs (one tonight) if you wanted.--Filll (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see it says "To participate, you'll need to install the latest version of Skype onto your computer," I have a connection speed of 2.1 to 2.9 kilobytes per second )= ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That might make it a bit difficult I suspect. Oh well.--Filll (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well thanks for the thought. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A comment on comments

Martin, there's a way to make comments in a way that won't disrupt conversations.

Take this thread:

something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something -- Someguy

Well, something else something else something else something else something else something else --Anotherguy

This disrupts the flow:

something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something -- Someguy

Well, something something something something something something something something something something something something --Martinphi
Well, something else something else something else something else something else something else --Anotherguy

On the other hand, this preserves both the flow and the temporal order:

something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something something -- Someguy

Well, something else something else something else something else something else something else --Anotherguy
Well, something something something something something something something something something something something something --Martinphi

Just wanted to let you know that there's a more helpful way of replying. Antelantalk 02:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be, I'll think about it. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are not retired

Stop pretending. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superrelativity

I fixed the formatting of this AfD for you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] non-negotiable

Martin, your edit. inadvertently I believe, reintroduced core and removed non-negotiable. No harm done as I see you noted the change and reverted it, but you probably do owe SA an apology for saying he changed it. I noted your discussion on Redflag but I need to think on it. I agree there may be some contradictions there but I need to study them. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You saw it never mind. Ward20 (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] closing admin possibilities

Would a link be provided in the case of superrelativity to Mr. Fiorentino's user page? By the way how do you like the way Mr. F. brings different fields together like Magnetism, Ionisation of water, and other previously thought unscientific 'cures' and solutions.

Thank you for your help on the subject--BennyCreemers (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: this politely snarky comment

Actually, this edit is precisely what it says it is: a reversion of this edit. I don't see why you think the description was at all misleading.Kww (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a mistake. I am having some trouble because of bigtime lack of sleep. At any rate, my mistake came about because he put in that summary while reverting two editors at once. I agreed with his revert of one, then saw he'd also edit warred his section back in. My error was mistaking the username, so I thought he reverted the last editor rather than two at once (and thus the section shouldn't have appeared there). Anyway, it was a mistake I'd refactor if it were not a summary. As I recently did on one edit. One gets frusterated with disruption on this scale, and makes mistakes. I mean, he does say some awesome stuff when reverting. I was hasty. see edit summaries here ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#ScienceApologist.2FJzG. John254 04:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I coulding vote support at this time. I wish adminship could be taken away easier- then there would be less reasons to keep people away from the tools and the non-technically based power that comes with them. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [7] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How about an IRC interview?

Have you ever considered using IRC? It requires very low bandwidth connections. Skype text chat also is very low bandwidth.--Filll (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe on both of these. I keep getting distracted and having to do stuff. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


We could have a regular audio chat going and then an IRC chat or a Skype chat simultaneous. You might be able to listen to the audio chat through your speakers (although I have my doubts), but certainly could follow the IRC chat or Skype chat. I would love to have you as part of this.--Filll (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks (: I can follow the chat, but never get streaming audio. I think the best thing, if you really want to do this, is to do chat or email, and then someone can read it if you want audio. Taking part in a multiple-way conversation isn't much good. Unless everyone is using email. Not chat as it goes too fast for me to think of decent responses in time for more than one person. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried IRC before? I like the mIRC client but there are several others that people use. Also, you can take part in chat using Skype quite easily if you just download it an install it.--Filll (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] beginning of bptdude comment

I did not know how to email you personally, so I say hello here. Please send me your email, if you do not mind, so I may speak more privately. Good luck on your arbitration.

The aggresive user in question seems to have god-like Wiki powers, but is not abiding by standards of journalism. I do not care that he believes in things or not, his bulk deleting of links to reference information and other unprofessional behavior hurts the reputation and integrity of Wiki.

I do not care if the article was about little green men from pluto, the belief of some people in it, that resulted in tax money of large sums spent over many years would make it a topic of public interest and any reason the proponents have for such activity should not be censored because some Wiki admin is having emotional difficulty with it.

Good luck.

Bptdude Bptdude (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reiki

Ooops, good call. I should have read that reference instead of just formatting it. That page is clearly not a reliable source.

Also, in the interests of community building, I note that your take on the last couple of AfDs in which we have both taken an interest has coincided with mine. I definitely much prefer scholarly disagreement to edit-warring. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 03:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I join with both of you in opposing the use of some professor's personal opinion page as a source; particularly since it in no way elaborates on scientific objections to the concept of Reiki. I've already reached my 3-R limit today on this issue, would one of you mind fixing it again? User:QuackGuru has taken up the cause for User:ScienceApologist. Jarandhel (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Truzzi

From his articles in local newspapers, books, articles, our conversations, and our correspondence Truzzi was a poor investigator of the paranormal. He was just too easy and willing to believe things that didn't jive with others, whether they accepted the paranormal or if they didn't. He made up things to satisfy his own needs. Whatever. He certainly was remarkable! Information of this type is not welcomed on the Wikipedia. People like to hear things that make them feel good about their heroes. Magicians and mentalists that believed in the paranormal loved him.Kazuba (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My stuff is never a formal paper. I am a street person, remember. My puzzles are only a hobby. I threw away a lot of stuff. Don't think I have anything. But I certainly remember I was not impressed. The last thing I heard from Martin Gardner was that Truzzi became a Geller supporter because Geller made millions claiming he was NOT a magician. If you are wise you go with the money. I have never been wise. Kazuba (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To survive as a self-educated grunt you either become streetwise or lucky. (Well then too I have had, and still do have, some exceptional teachers.) That's just the way it is. Plus you must know by now I am definitely a misfit. The happiness and health of my wife and family have always been more important to me than anything else. More than anything else I wanted happiness to dwell under my roof. Read Swan Song by Robert R. McCammon. Check out some of the more recent additions to my user page at the bottom. Shazam! Kazuba (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re medcab

To be honest, I've experienced a lot of difficulty over 1-word disputes like this... I'm just kinda hanging around to make sure people don't start hurting each other with pointy sticks :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe; I agree mediation has failed (I couldn't think of much to do). Although there was a lull there... the dispute has moved to a tag, no? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Right. Medcom may actually be a good choice. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral.

Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations.

Thank you again, VanTucky

[edit] H arbitration

Wouldn't this be a good time to discuss the disconnect between the NPOV in minority cases and they way that policy is generally used by the SPOV advocates? Anthon01 (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Makes me feel good. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— is smileing at you!

Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

It was very true.

[edit] Arbitration enforcement warning

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Martinphi_restricted, you are subject to being banned from any page if you make disruptive edits. Your recent edits to Parapsychology are bordering on disruptive. If you continue to edit disruptively there, you are likely to be banned from that page for a period of time. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology

Hello,

Re your warning on my talk page, I'm just wondering if you know of several facts: one, that ScienceApologist is edit warring those changes in against the wishes of other editors. Two, that we discussed it on the talk page. Three, that his edit warring out of the word "phenomenon" is an extension of his edit war at WTA, which he does utterly against the consensus of other editors there. Four, that Parapsychology is a featured article, and edits -especially those which change the POV or which eliminate standard terminology (as with his edit)- should be discussed and agreed upon first.

I'm at a loss to see how removing such an edit of his is disruptive on my part. He is utterly outside wiki process, in which he should use the talk page if reverted, and abide by the communal decision process. Did you also warn him?

I don't know what process you went through to decide whether to warn me or not. If there is anything on the wiki, could you point me to it? I do see that you did not warn ScienceApologist for his disruption. I was only defending the status quo, and asking that edits be made by consensus. He was edit warring his changes in.

What I do know about you leads me to hope you are fair- I'm reading your posts to ScienceApologist's talk page here. So I hope fairness will prevail (: ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the background to your dispute and I had fully intended to suggest that ScienceApologist not edit war either, but I must have closed that tab without saving. His editing restriction doesn't apply to edit warring, but I've suggested that he should discuss rather than edit warring. Stifle (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, great. See, ScienceApologist is in a unique position, because he can do anything, and blocks just wont stick. Raul unblocked him over the objections of other admins and an ArbCom member, FT2. He sometimes refuses mediation even. So what am I supposed to do? Just abandon the featured article when he edit wars nonconsensus changes in? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that one. Stifle (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd be interested to get your perspective on this question, the answer to which will help resolve the issue you and ScienceApologist seem to be having right now. Antelantalk 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reiki

I just added this systematic review to the reiki article. This entailed an almost complete rewrite of the Scientific research section to reflect this professional systematic assessment of the literature and to substantiate or remove previously uncited statements. I also largely removed the description of sham reiki in favor of a link to blind experiment.

If you get a chance to look it over and concur, I would like to remove the {{Totally-disputed-section}} tag. Please share your thoughts at Talk:Reiki#Scientific research. Regards. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, this would be a lot simpler if you would just take the "other" side consistently :). Thank you for ditching the POV-tags, it is good to have a reasonable consensus. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to WP:CIVIL

Hey, um, I was looking at WP:CIVIL, and, well, gien that you're in a very public dispute with Science Apologist, and given that he's under civility patrol, it might be best if you moved away from that policy page, as it gives a somewhat unseemly appearance. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, okay, I looked at the talk page one last time, and this:

Yes, he said it very well indeed. And thanks for archiving (: For many months I have watched people poison the atmosphere, and, for example, call certain "groups of people" who just happened to be present, stuff like "moronic" "woo-woos" "crazies" "nutcases" etc. It has NOT been dealt with. In fact in the case on one user it has not been dealt with even after ArbCom sanctions about civility

really makes it clear you do have SA in mind with these proposals. That REALLY isn't on. Please stop. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong. I had many editors in mind, probably at least 20 or 30. SA is included. I am the perfect person to edit that page, given my experience with highly uncivil editors who poison the atmosphere while staying just below the level where they'll get blocked. Please don't tell me what to do. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Per your question on my talk page, ScienceApologist is not editing WP:CIV. You are, and in a manner that prejudices it against a person you had a recent arbcom case with. Again, this really isn't on, good faith or not. It looks bad. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


Heya, so I've been reading up. Adding examples of "what not to say" to a policy is sort of beansy. It might be giving our enthusiastic young trolls and vandals a couple of good ideas you see... hmmm, perhaps we shouldn't quite do that. ;-)

Is it true that you're mostly just worried about ScienceApologist, like Shoemaker's Holiday thinks, or is there something else going on that I'm missing? (I haven't the time to check edit histories more deeply, atm, sadly). You can leave me a message per wikipedia e-mail too.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to do this, but what's going on does disturb me, so... Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMartinphi-ScienceApologist Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong section on RfArb

You have edited another editor's section in the RfArb page. You should move that to your own section. Antelantalk 22:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

He addressed me there. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he raised a point about you in his section. The normal thing to do is to reply in your section. Antelantalk 23:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reiki

I, Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) award you this barnstar for your hard work in the spirit of neutrality on the Reiki article.
I, Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) award you this barnstar for your hard work in the spirit of neutrality on the Reiki article.

[edit] Coffee pot ghost

What is your opinion of [8]?--Filll (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Um. No idea. Another EVP site. Why? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I told some people that you were an expert and would know about this.--Filll (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert except as this wiki goes. But who, where what and why? I listened to a sample. Sounded like oooo oooo oooo ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPOV

I just finished reading the long discussion on N/SPOV, and had one thought running through my head most of if not the whole time; but it was extreme enough that I didn't feel comfortable throwing it right out in public, so I thought I'd lob it your way since you were so vociferous in professing your neutrality vis-a-vis the matter of NPOV vs. SPOV:

The entire idea of WEIGHT to me seems wrongheaded and unfair, to the point that the assertion in WP:NPOV (section Undue Weight):

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

seems flat self-contradictory to me. Even leaving aside occasional cases where an idea can be observed percolating on the proverbial street but hasn't yet garnered mainstream attention, to my mind "fair representation" of any given viewpoint would dictate a dedication of effort and resources proportional to the complexity of the viewpoint, not its prominence. Thus the only time one viewpoint's description would be longer than another would be when the first was more intricate and involved than the second - which might offend the sensibilities of Occam's Razor, of course, but that's neither here nor there.

Am I making sense on this, or am I completely out in left-field? Not that it would be the first time; I think I have a summer home there! --Duneflower, resident weirdo (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original complaint

I put my links in their own section, but I don't know what you mean by "changing the original complaint". It seems that there are many, many different complaints and I was just adding mine to the list.--Urban Rose 04:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me. I appreciate it.--Urban Rose 04:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wp:v

You're getting close to 3RR in the attempt to keep the word "controversial" as well as "exceptional". Please be careful. DGG (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

First one was concur with fyslee and was only a partial replacement. Second was also only partial return to fyslee's version. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kazuba

My user page is finished. Take a look Kazuba (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WARNING

This edit is disruptive and flouts WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution. I have reverted it and am putting you on notice that future activities like this will be reported as disruptive editing. In particular, putting "lol" in your edit summary is particularly smarmy and completely unhelpful. Also, you should note that cherry-picking the quote as you did from the particular attribution you chose is transparently an example of POV-pushing and aligns as a pattern in your editing. This is your last warning. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Responding for the benefit of others who might read this: my edit was based on the quote, and the quote was the conclusion reached by the source. Maybe the lol wasn't good, but I think it's kind of funny that one of the sources used to denigrate parapsychology actually says the opposite. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The source clearly establishes that Parapsychology is considered a pseudoscience and makes light of the fact that it carries the trappings of legitimacy. Superficial pretenses of academic prowess are expected from the pseudoscience purveyors. See Institute for Creation Research for another prominent example of how such nonsense gets treated. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


It says it doesn't "measure up," but it also says "Parapsychology may not have an important contribution to make to the way science views the mind, but its methods are often those of true science. " So basically it says the same thing as Randi when he says, yes, it's a science, it just doesn't have results. Anyway, "pseudoscience" is a misrepresentation. this is the source ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, relative to SA saying that my edit was against FRINGE, that section is another he's edit warring in without consensus from several editors. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You're both fortunate you weren't blocked for edit-warring, given your histories and this back-and-forth. MastCell Talk 23:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You'd be right, except I wasn't edit warring. I made a legit change. SA was edit warring as always. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And why is "yawn" ok [9], but a lol about the sources is not? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

sI'm assuming this is addressed to me. Did I say "yawn" was OK? Did I criticize your "lol"? I said you were both fortunate to avoid being blocked because of the edit-warring. MastCell Talk 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I was putting it here for someone else. And, it's a rhetorical question. And, as I told you, I wasn't edit warring, else I'd have reverted. I just made a change. Also, one revert -had I made one- isn't edit warring. Look more carefully and you'll see I make a great effort not to edit war. I'm mostly on a self-imposed 1RR except in the most egregious situations or where consensus has changed. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, since it was rhetorical, I've struck my response. Feel free to remove it if you like. MastCell Talk 19:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There's not offense taken. I can see how you would have interpreted it to be to you. Anyway, I already know that you don't think SA acts right, you've told him. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Off topic, I just noticed {{The Socratic barnstar}}, which you created. I like it, but the cynic in me would subtitle it: "To be awarded to those editors who may one day be recognized for their brilliance, but at present have been awarded a free cup of hemlock by the community for their troubles." :) MastCell Talk 23:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That's hilarious. I'm not quite sure how to interpret it in the current general situation, especially as to who the brilliant ones are supposed to be, but thanks for the laugh (: ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I went to put what you said in the subtitle, but then decided barnstars aren't supposed to be cynical..... heh. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe the Diogenes barnstar, but that would be Cynical with a capital "C". :) MastCell Talk 23:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually thinking of a "black ops" or Secret Barnstar, to give to people when you can't tell them why they're getting it (= ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)