User talk:Perfectblue97

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This user is a proud member of WikiProject Paranormal, and thus strives to provide a fair and representative view of entries relating to Parapsychology, Ufology, Cryptozoology, Urban myths/legends and related topics. Both in science and in popular belief.


Contents

[edit] Old Conversations

Sandbox

[edit] Award from Dynamo_ace

For your enchancments on the Clow Cards article, i Dynamo_ace give you the Tireless contributor Barnstar!
For your enchancments on the Clow Cards article, i Dynamo_ace give you the Tireless contributor Barnstar!

Keep up the good work!-Dynamo_ace Talk


[edit] Award from Jumping cheese

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I hereby award Perfectblue97 the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for all the hard work in expanding the Kim Possible pages. Keep it up! Jumping cheese Cont@ct 06:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Cookie for you

Here's a cookie to reward you for all your helpful edits and for your tirless work to improve paranormal related artciles. Especially helpful has been your work towards improving references.LiPollis 13:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's a cookie to reward you for all your helpful edits and for your tirless work to improve paranormal related artciles. Especially helpful has been your work towards improving references.LiPollis 13:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Whiskey for you

A Scotch Whiskey for you, for your tireless contribution to paranormal-related articles and your cool mind in the face of the lengthy arbitration case. 这是给你的威士忌酒，干杯。WooyiTalk, Editor review 04:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
A Scotch Whiskey for you, for your tireless contribution to paranormal-related articles and your cool mind in the face of the lengthy arbitration case. 这是给你的威士忌酒，干杯。WooyiTalk, Editor review 04:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re : American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena

As requested. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Hey!

Sorry for not noticing earlier, but thanxs for adding extremely detailed and valid fair use rational for all the KP pics! You definitely saved a bunch from deletion. Imagine if all of the KP pics were deleted (shudder...dodged that bullet!). Jumping cheese Cont@ct 06:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job on the shego pics. --=CJK= 18:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Cookie for you

This Cookie is awarded to you for your appropriate changes to the Crybaby Bridge article]. Your tact and attention to Wikistandards is admirable. LiPollis 05:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This Cookie is awarded to you for your appropriate changes to the Crybaby Bridge article]. Your tact and attention to Wikistandards is admirable. LiPollis 05:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Parapsychology is now a Featured Article

The Paranormal Barnstar
I'm awarding you this barnstar for your having worked hard to help me get Parapsychology to FA status. Congratulations. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:TIMETRACE

Hello, I wonder if you could, while editing diverse articles, check if they have sources in their history or chronology (or when they mention any important date. If they don't, could you please place inline {{Timefact}} calls where those citations to sources are missing, this will display [chronology source needed] . If you find an article with too many inline calls to place or totally lacking needed history of the subject, you can instead place {{histrefm}} at the footnotes of the article's main page, just before Categories. If you could add this to your routines, it will most certainly help WP:TIMETRACE. Thank you for your help. Daoken 06:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP

Why don't you look at the EVP article when you get a chance, see what you think needs to be done. Things are a lot more peaceful nowadays. We just had a lot of trouble with the placement of parapsychology on the FA page- so that could bear watching also. Re EVP, if Dreadstar gets enough votes and becomes an admin, I'm thinking of asking him to kind of lead us through a re-write on the EVP article, as he is someone I trust to be neutral and not bias things agains the paranormal. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm going to put some space between myself and that page. I will however support the admin nomination. - perfectblue 10:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, I thought you were against totally rewriting the EVP article? I've offered several times to organize a rewrite of the article yet you never took me up on the offer. Now you want Dreadstar to "lead" a rewrite of it? I wonder why that is. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Nealparr might be a better choice, the way things are seen. But we're now discussing it on your talk page and the EVP talk page. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's not discuss it here then. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally, and this is my own opinion, EVP is primarily notable because of unvalidated beliefs that are held about it (eg, people believe X but don't have scientific proof of it) therefore the page should discuss these beliefs in depth and should explore the reasons for these beliefs. For example, if X million people believe a hypothesis put forward in some book or other, then that book and its hypothesis are clearly notable and therefore should be included, even if the author has no scientific backing or background. Sadly, pseudoskeptics will never accept that an unscientific source or belief is appropriate for Wikipedia, even if it is clearly notable enough. Therefore I feel that the EVP article is unlikely to representative of the true body of opinion and feeling about EVP in the real world. - perfectblue 07:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The article could use expansion of what goes on in pop culture, certainly, but I don't think it is unfair to EVP or to skepticism at the present. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
When last I looked, it could have done with some more text dedicated to
  1. Exactly what popular culture believes about EVP
  2. The pseudoscience that has developed around it
  3. Its place in the wider pantheon of paranormal beliefs

perfectblue 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I think, and what I've heard others say as well. If you know enough, why don't you come over and write it up? I'm going to nominate it for GA status tomorrow (and also re-do the skepticism section), and we'll see what happens. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 08:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple of people have attempted to use the fact that I supported the inclusion of popular myth/culture in this page against me in order to try and make me seem like a user with a pro-bad science bias, so I'm going to stay out of the fray on this one. I also can't cite my own interviews and conclusions about people and the experiments carried out by them on the page, so It's a bit frustrating for me (Well I can, but it would go down badly. I'm more interested in the cultural aspects of belief and in the history of research/researchers). - perfectblue 09:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dreadstar RfA

Click there to open your card! → → →

Thanks for your support! I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by stealing borrowing someone else's card design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! If I haven't told you before, I just love your Wikipe-Tan avatar...she's...well...perfect..! Dreadstar † 08:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SatyrBot

SatyrBot's offline for a little while. It was malfunctioning, and rather than fix it, I'm finishing up the complete re-write that I've been working on for a while. I should have the maintenance function back online next week. Sorry for the inconvenience! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I know - I've been missing all that the bot was doing for WP:LGBT, too. I've got most of the basic coding done and have been working on it's daily activities. I should have it up and working either by the end of the week or early next week. Sorry for the delay!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Perfectblue97! I've been working to improve SatyrBot's functioning, and I wanted to ask you two things:
  1. Has the bot been working okay on the WikiProject's maintenance reports within the past week? Did you notice it's work [[User:SatyrBot/Paranormal|today], and did it do alright?
  2. Would you take a look at the offering page I've put together to "advertise" to other WikiProjects?
Many thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Chitauri

I really have no idea of protocol or couth as far contacting others on Wikipedia, but I want to re-ignite the Chitauri page! I have restarted the talk page with my reasons. Please contribute!

Stabbycat 06:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chitauri

Hi. :) Per your request at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review, I have userfied the material from Chitauri to User:Perfectblue97/Chitauri so that you may examine it to see if it can be reasonably incorporated into a subarticle. Please note that if you do choose to use this material, it will have to be written in your own words to avoid infringing the copyright of the editors who contributed to the deleted article. Please make your considerations soon. As the header at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review indicates, "keeping deleted content in your userspace if you have no immediate intention of using it for encyclopaedic purposes is frowned on, as Wikipedia is not a free web host. If kept too long, the page may be nominated for deletion at miscellany for deletion". When you have finished with it, please mark it with {{db-userreq}} so that it can be deleted. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your note at my talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP pic

Hi PB,

On this pic [1], could you change the comment/caption? It's being questioned as OR. Thanks, ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! (-= I will take your advice on the pic. I didn't know they were different under OR. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] talk:Chitauri

I reviewed the discussion there isnt anything about improving the article only a comment about its deleteion and a complaint about red links to which I've redirected the page. There was also recommendation to got to WP:DRV it you want the article restored. I noticed you've had the article restored to user space, when you think its ready for returning to mainspace drop me a note I'll review it, and comment at WP:DRV. Gnangarra 01:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your reverts to Kim Possible Episodes

I have reverted your spate of recent reverts. I understand you feel that these were not part of consensus, but please consult WP:CON as well as the multiple instances where this issue has been raised at WP:AN/I and such redirects confirmed as appropriate per our guidelines governing notability, Episode articles and fictional topics. If you are planning on bringing these episodes up to the standard as elucidated at these various policy and guideline pages, I warmly welcome such an effort, and suggest that you consult WP:NOT which explains why plot summaries are not appropriate for Wikipedia and WP:TRIVIA which will explain why trivia sections are strongly discouraged. Additionally, you will need to assert real-world, out-of-universe notability for these articles, backed up by independent, third-party, reliable sources (see WP:RS). Sorry for all the acronyms & underlining, but it is important that content comply with our policies and guidelines that have developed over time. These are wikipedia WP:CONSENSUS (and do please read that). Consensus allows this site to function, despite diverse editors and points of view. Finally, I would note that if your principal interest in this TV series is to provide plot summaries, character development and trivia, you will be far better off to invest your time and efforts at a wikia (www.wikia.com), where such contributions are not only welcomed, but warmly encouraged. Thanks and happy editing. Eusebeus 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SatyrBot & Paranormal

Hi, Perfectblue97! SatyrBot is running daily reports for WP:Paranormal. I seem to have goofed on the settings, though, and it's putting them in its own userspace! I've changed that setting so that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paranormal/To do list short and Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/To do list full will update tonight. Sorry about that! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Is everything working okay? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTF! Ghostlight MERGED AGAIN !!

Who the fucking hell had the idea to MERGE Ghostlight into Will-o'-the-wisp - AGAIN. I thought this was resolved. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I was told I'd find the article by others. Now I have to tell them that someone (seen the History section) thinks that "Ghostlight" is not a worthy article, in spite of the evidence, incl. police evidence. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wanaweep mascot 1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Wanaweep mascot 1.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wanaweep mascot 2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Wanaweep mascot 2.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intentionally ironic

Given the entirety of your edit history, your comment opposing the merger of Will 'o the wisp and Ghost light seems to be intentionally ironic. Do you have a serious opposition to the merger? Antelan talk 01:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue, if I were you I'd report him for this, or at least give him a {{Warning|}}, regular or no. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

lan What, exactly, are you talking about? I'm concerned that a literary subject is being merged with a paranormal subject. Will 'o the wisp is clearly and undeniably a topic in Western folklore that refers to several specific stories phenomona, whereas ghost lights is paranormal terminology used to refer to multiple unrelated phenomona with no single cause or cultural origin. - perfectblue (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you got some sources for that. Because SA does have some sources that, I think, make it out to be the same thing. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You want sources to say that Will o' the whisp is folklore rather than modern paranormal urban myth? Sorry, but you've got to be joking, right? I thought that this was basic Halloween/tales around the campfire, kind of stuff? I guess you might be too modern to be into that stuff. More into PSPs and MTV than American folk history?

Still, you might want to take a look at "The Ignis Fatuus, Its Character and Legendary Origin" by William Wells Newell in V17#64 of The Journal of American Folklore? It outlines the traditional folklore origins of will o the wisp from a third party perspective.

As for having a source say that they are the same, well, this is partly true, but as I have previously said, SA merged them backwards. Will o the wisp is a kind of ghost light, but ghost lights aren't a kind of will o the wisp. The latter refers only to folklore, not to UFO, not to parapsychology, or ghost hunting, and not to modern urban myths. The merge might have stood up to scrutiny if Will o the wisp redirected, but not the other way around.
Of course, I still believe that the two should be kept separate. Merging an literary topic with a paranormal topic is bad precedent, especially when one is backed by well known folk tales and the other is basically spook spotting. Imagine if I were to merge the page on crop circles with the page on grain, or the entry on gravity with a page in fringe beliefs about anti-gravity? Do you see where I'm coming from? - perfectblue (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe you. We just can't do anything about anything without sources. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, SA's own source could potentially provide the WP:V necessary to turn the entry upside down (or, from our perspective, the right way up). I haven't checked them out in detail yet, but unless they say that ghost lights are a subset of Ignis Fatuus folklore, what they are actually saying is that Ignis Fatuus folklore is part of the wider myth of ghost lights (thus Ignis Fatuus the child and ghost light is the parent). That alone would be enough to reverse the redirect and to have Will o' the wisp instated as a subsection on the ghost light page.
For me, this would be a better solution to the current issue. It would remove any suggestion that what are basically local ghost stories where part of an academically accepted topic like folklore and it would also help to prevent POV creep that ghost lights were real by people using source about folklore as if they were historically accurate.
I'm at a loss to say why SA might want to try to imply what basically amounts to spook stories out as being part of a mainstream topic, doing so would be rather out of character. It's not even as if ghost lights are part of parapsychology, in fact they're barely even part of scientific skepticism. I don't even consider them to be paranormal in the strictest sense as they're often not enough to most of them to debunk without having to resort to "I didn't see it, so it doesn't exist". They're mostly just modern urban myths.
perfectblue (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film

Do you think the discussion and RfC on What the Bleep Do We Know!? should be mentioned on the Wikiproject:Paranormal page? It was canvassed out to all the scientific, skeptic and fringe projects and boards...even tho it's a film and not a scientific article. Just checking. Dreadstar † 00:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked this against Wiki-regs on canvasing and I haven't actually seen the film so can't give an authoritative answer right now. That page was recently the subject of an Arbcom enforcement against two of the users involved in the RFC but canvasing wasn't mentioned. Either the admin weren't aware of it or didn't consider that it was a canvasing violation. You could raise the issue with the Admin if it concerns you, particularly as it wasn't evenly done, but I can't advise you on whether or not any regs were broken without reading up further.
If you think that this warrants a mention on the project page and think that this falls within accepted practices I won't revert your edits. - perfectblue (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, actually the canvassing wasn't really my concern. It was really about who should be notified about the RfC...and I wasn't sure if WP:Proj:Paranormal should have been notified or not. Canvssing isn't necessarily bad, "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion". Dreadstar † 09:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't actually watched the film, but as I understand it, it is supposed to be a documentary discussing science and popular beliefs through a fictional narrative. If this is correct, and if this discussion covers sufficient project areas, then the RFC should be mentioned on the project page. It's your call, as I have said I haven't seen the film so I shouldn't really be making any calls based on its contents. - perfectblue (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melon heads

Thanks for your contributions to the Melon heads debate. On a side note, since you're interested in the paranormal, you might want to check out the folklore section of Hanging Hills, an article I recently updated. Happy New Year!--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response left

Left a response to you: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal#Paranormal edits Be well, --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SatyrBot & Paranormal (ii)

The full "to-do" list is now a transclusion of the several sub-lists. If you take a look at the code, you'll see that the full list is pulling in the several pages:

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ScienceApologist

He announced that he was leaving the project and asked that his user and talk pages be deleted. I honoured the request under the right to vanish. So, as far as I know, he's not using any accounts at all now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you do see any evidence that he's evading an arb comm ruling, let me know. But my impression was he was just really frustrated with Wikipedia, and didn't want to edit here anymore. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
So I see (I watchlist pretty well all pages I delete). As far as I'm aware, it's perfectly acceptable for an unvanished user to have a deleted user page (see User:JzG - or, rather, don't, since his user page is deleted), but I've resolved to have nothing more to do with deletions of this user's pages. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact, that's definitely the case. The account was never deleted, only the userpage, so he would have had to log into the same account in order to edit under that name. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies.
If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tags:

{{Histfact}} displays {history source needed} for requesting sources for historical claims and history context. Click here for more information
{{Timefact}} displays {chronology source needed} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information


At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.

Daoken 10:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Digital bra/bikini

I have nominated Digital bra/bikini, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital bra/bikini. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MfD nomination of User:Perfectblue97/shadow1

User:Perfectblue97/shadow1, a page you created, has 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/User:Perfectblue97/shadow1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Perfectblue97/shadow1 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) 18:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)