User talk:Martinphi/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Top page difference?

Hmmm...let's see now...hmmm...A-HA! Oh my goodness, that is totally adorable!! What a great pentagram! I love it!

Oh, and thanks for the defense, it was probably better for you to comment on it than me, since I was the attackee. As a matter of fact, it's recommended in WP:NPA:

"Equally, accusing someone of making a personal attack is not something that should be done lightly, especially if you are involved in a dispute. It is best for an uninvolved observer to politely point out that someone has made a personal attack, and for the discussion to return to considering the content, not the person."

I'll give him a second chance...'specially if I get a small, wee apology..;) It wouldn't be too bad to have a professional historian and researcher as an editor-buddy. He managed to hit directly on my biggest pet peeves - CIV and NPA. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just love that pentagram! Dreadlocke ☥ 05:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Say, can you do motion gif's like this one: [[Image:Ufo.gif]]? User:Davkal created that one, but used trial software to do it - thus it has a "trial" watermark. Also note the license he used for what is essentially a new creation made from several other free-license works...just like yours is...Dreadlocke ☥ 06:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, feel free to <nowiki></nowiki> that after you've read it... ;) Dreadlocke ☥ 06:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macrae

1) Macrae is sufficiently qualified and notable to be included regardless of the status for the JSPR as a peer reviewed journal 2) The SPR is over 100 years old, and is affiliated with one of the worlds most renowned universities, and its journal is fully peer reviewed. 3) The former published material in the latter that proves that EVP exists as a "speech like anomaly with no apparent scientific cause".

As I see it, there is no way we can honestly say that there is no scientific support or evidence for EVP. I don't personally believe in EVP, I think that it's a mixture of people hearing voices in static, or picking up stray signals and interference and blowing it up into something supernatural, but I can't in good conscious dismiss Macrae.

On the other side, he didn't find a cause for his anomalies, so we can say that they have never been "proven" to be paranormal.

perfectblue 07:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JSPR

I have just 100% confirmed that Alexander Macrae DID indeed publish a report in the JSPR in October 2005. The title is different, HOWEVER the contents are the same. The published title is "Report of an Electronic Voice Phenomenon Experiment inside a Double-Screened Room".

If anybody doubts this they can contact the SPR themselves. The number is (international) 44 2079378984. The UK is about 5 hours ahead of EST.

perfectblue 10:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediumship

"Totally incorrect and misleading. Very poorly researched." Is not meant to be a personal attack. It is ONLY a criticism of the material. There is too much paranoia. You guys are too close to this stuff. It owns you. You are seeing it as personal. To criticize brings out emotional out bursts. It ain't personal. It is not an personal attack.

The Houdini messages and Palladino materials mentioned here needed to be examined more deeply before writing about them. As I told Dreadlocke on his discussion page, Dreadlocke is missing out on the richness of these problems by just skimming over things too quickly. Things are being lost. Things that (I think) should not be buried and forgotten. One of the biggest things that has kept PSI on the band wagon, in the public eye, (controversial??) and alive is only telling part of the story; much, too much, selectivity.

Ingo Swann He sent his mind to Jupiter. He can lower the temperature in a room by PK. He can effect electronic equiptment by just talking about it. Oh yeah, and Courtney Brown found Martians living beneath the surface of Mars with his remote viewing skills and visits Jesus, praises the work of Dean Radin. Give me a break! Bringing things like this up are not attacks. It is being informative. There is no hurry. User:Kaziba 14 Feb 2007

Please don't "cherry pick" from your comments and then ask for a break. Instead, please try to understand that even in your example above, the second part of your quote ("Very poorly researched.") is a WP:CIV#Examples petty violation (second bullet point) - not to mention your comments in the post you left on my talk page. I'm willing to move forward and drop the issue if you recognize what I'm complaining about and merely apologize. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Martin, I responded in detail too. Hopefully he'll get it. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The man just can't find it in his heart to apologize: [1]. Rude, uncivil. Have you seen this: Don't be a dick? His "finding fault" makes him an impediment, and his lack of apology makes him...what?  :) Dreadlocke ☥ 03:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Very strange, but he's beginning to grow on me. QUICK! WHACK me with a baseball bat before it grows too big! The plasmodic hand strikes!! Dreadlocke ☥ 03:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD conclusion

YAY!! - - Dreadlocke ☥ 17:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP

Honestly, I've tried before to involve myself in the EVP article, but it seems to be a subject that I have little interest in besides watching it on Ghost Hunters or other similiar shows. Plus the debate on the talk page gets pretty ugly, and overly-complex. I'll try again, tho... I don't think either the popular culture or scientific views should be sacrificed for each other, both need to be included. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:11, 14 February

[edit] Work?

There was not much work done. The first parts were copied word for word from their source. It may have been just copied and pasted. Check it out. The Houdini stuff was faked. An attack? I must come from a rougher neighborhood. Here, around Detroit, "shame on you is nothin'". Hell, we talk with guns, saws and baseball bats. User:Kazuba 14 Feb 2007

Yes, "work" on the overall article and others like it, not just the tiny little section you are referring to. It took quite a bit of effort just to save the thing in the first place. Thanks for more insults. Not a good way to get cooperation from other editors. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White wash on Radin

That's NPOV? Where everything is positive to the nth degree and nothing is objective or questionable? You even removed his own lunar cycle casino research. That was a real treasure. I'm surprised you left the bent spoon. User:Kazuba

[edit] EVP again

Check out this discussion. Interesting. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well, Hello Selectivity!

What do they call that, the file drawer problem? User:Kazuba 15 Feb 2007

[edit] EVP II

I'm actually a researcher rather than a parapsychologist so I'm only involved in the recording aspect rather than the research end (I've never conducted any EVP research, not even for a joke), but overall I'd say that that EVP is regarded quite someway below things like ESP and remote viewing (if only because pareidolia and some of the "overzealous" editing methods used to "clean up" audio samples make result highly subjective), but it is still a notable and heavily researched/dabbled field (I don't consider most of the EVP work done to be actual research because I think that it's it's done by amatures playing aroun with static until they get the "results" that they want).

In short, a lot of people know about EVP and a lot of people look into it, and it's got far more belief than some areas ever get, but only a small percentage of this is "worthy" of our interest.

perfectblue 08:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Journal of Parapsychology

I just checked USC's online database. We actually have an online subscription to the Journal of Parapsychology... every issue since 1993. I might take a look if I can find the time. Thanks for the recommendation. =) – Lantoka (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let me know what articles you want looked up and I'll make electronic copies available to you. They're all online, so it's really easy to do. – Lantoka (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Regrettably I am not subscribed to that particular journal. Anything from the Journal of Parapsychology you want me to pull? I 100% definitely have anything you need from there. I'm also open to other journal requests. Go ahead and list them all at once if that's more convenient for you... I'll e-mail them to you if I have them. For spam filter purposes, I'll be mailing from lantoka@hotmail.com. – Lantoka (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you be a bit more specific? "Rhine Research Center" is the title of an article, right? What year? – Lantoka (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Most likely. Here's the info I do have on it:
Journal of Parapsychology
ISSN:           0022-3387
Publisher:              Parapsychology Press
Issues/Year:            4
Audience:               Academic
Format:                 Magazine/Journal, Refereed
Index coverage:                 Mar 1, 1989 -
Full-text coverage:             Sep 1, 1992 - Current
Hope that helps. Eagerly awaiting more requests. =) – Lantoka (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP III

I am not sure we need to go down the mediation route right now. I have been involved in mediation in the past with mixed results. The strange thing here is that I genuinely don't think there is a great deal of disagreement, rather than simply a lack of understnding. In some cases though I am not sure that the misunderstanding is all that genuine. Give it a few days. Davkal 02:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR at Psychic

At Psychic you seem to have violated 3RR. Please don't revert war like this, especially when you don't have consensus and your edits are inserting POV to the article. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology as a science

Yes, parapsychology is a field of science. That is often disputed, but it isn't disputed very well. Even skeptics acknowledge the field as a field. What the dispute is really over is the scientists in the field of parapsychology, their methodology, and the interpretation of the results. In this controversy, parapsychology as a field of study is often questioned as being worthwhile. It's also criticized as being hopelessly flawed. But it can't really be denied completely. The reason is because there's always the possibility that parapsychology could create a non-flawed experiment, have non-flawed scientists, and prove once and for all that there is no such thing as psychic abilities or that there is. Rightly speaking, experiments of parapsychologists might be pseudoscience, but not the field itself.

Now, do I think all of that belongs in the psychic article? No, not really : )

--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 03:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question on my talk page, yes, on the parapsychology article, I will defend it as a scientific field of study. --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 04:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


parascience sandbox