User talk:Martinphi/Template

Thanks for catching that extra vandalism that I missed. Verbal chat 08:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand they've all said similar things, right? Sheldrake, Radin, Jahn? If these three I think the ref would have enough weight, then. It's a highly central point to the whole debate so I was surprised it wasn't already in the lede. --Asdfg12345 08:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, there must have been enough literature for a section exploring the stubborn and dogmatic response of mainstream science to these experiments. There is a critique/response of Sheldrake's work in a book I read the intro of on Amazon recently, and this proves that this discussion has currency. It's also a key factor that parapsychologists raise/use to explain why these things aren't yet accepted as true. I think it would be remiss of editors to omit all this highly relevant discussion.--Asdfg12345 08:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Remote viewers and Category:Telepaths, which you created, have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Martinphi at WP:NPOV. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of personal attacks is common practice, and allows the attacker to leave it be and no harm done. Removal of well-poisoning, I would think, is an especially good idea. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a good idea to refactor someone elses comments at the best of times; it is especially inappropriate when those comments are directed at you (except on your own user talk page). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Now, what about the attack? Your emphasis on this issue is simply inappropriate when you do not deal with the main issue. Shoemaker should be warned that I will be asking ArbCom for a amendment to his case if he ever does something like this again. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you aren't getting it Martinphi, so I will be clear here:

• Do not, under any circumstances remove any one else's comments (except on your own talk page) unless they are causing serious harm to your real life, non-Wikipedia identity. Do not interpret this with any latitude.
• Furthermore, you are asked to stop referring to or communicating to Shoemaker for at least 24 hours from this message.
• Furthermore, you are asked to pledge that you will wait for an acknowledgment of consensus before editing any policy page for the next week.
• You will acknowledge this message, and do so on the appropriate WP:AE topic

If you do not do these things, I will remove my objection to you getting brand new topic bans, and instead endorse them.--Tznkai (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--I forgot to note here that Martinphi has in fact, acknowledged and agreed to the above terms. He is commended for playing ball.--Tznkai (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed what looks like an edit war breaking out at that page. Strongly suggest backing away from the edit button (I'm leaving this message for both of you). Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 23:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I reverted an IP edit once. The other edits were an addition and filling dubious and synth tag requests with sources. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martinphi/WEIGHT changes, a page you substantially contributed to, 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:Martinphi/WEIGHT changes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Martinphi/WEIGHT changes 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. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rewriting the lead section for Implications of nanotechnology - it's much clearer and to the point now. I think these kinds of articles unfortunately seem a bit intimidating to people sometimes and don't get too many edits, so anything to make them more accessible is a big improvement! Antony-22 (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't be anal, a page you substantially contributed to, 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/Wikipedia:Don't be anal and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Don't be anal 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. -- Suntag ☼ 05:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that will make you happy. What do I have to do to please you cite the material for each sentence? When the contents of the Bible, etc. are brought up on the Wikipedia I get a fuzzy feeling that stuff is very controversial, but no one seems to care. Why is that? Kazuba (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's up? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 23:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am looking for people who would like to help building the following article. It is currently in need of practical people who appreciate reality. If I could get people who are interesting in the medical aspects of living on a extra solar planet (people not bacteria) that would be great. I am lacking in experience in finding the right people to edit and add referencing to this article that we are trying to finish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability

GabrielVelasquez (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you couldn't really mean to leave this half sentence:

This present creation then, in Walsch's viewpoint, is established by and within God, so that [[senti

in the article. thats no good ending. --AwOc 03:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
diff-link--AwOc 03:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was a mistake, thanks for catching it (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Martin

User:ScienceApologist posted a message on the fringe theories noticeboard that he has a problem with a series of your recent edits. I said I didn't mind stepping in to find out what was going on. I'm hoping I can open up a channel of communication; if so, you could treat it as an informal mediation if you both like. Or since I see that both Elonka and MBisanz are around you could use either of them to the same purpose anyway. I'd be willing to provide a further opinion on any of the substantive issues. Anyway, if I can help in any way, please let me know. Regards. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (: I don't have time right now to check it out, but if SA has troubles with my recent edits, it might be because he was trying to force changes at the Psychic article. I explained the problems with with the edits on the talk page. Or, he may have a problem with edits like this. The latter is something we went through a whole ArbCom to decide, so I don't feel that much more discussion is necessary. SA and his friends have never accepted that ArbCom, but I maintain that Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process. If they want to bring it back to ArbCom, they should, but till then they are bound to accept it. For background, the whole ArbCom on the paranormal is relevant, but especially this this and this. For the Psychic article, it's relevant that the "Three layer cake with frosting" part of the ArbCom specifically refers to parapsychology as "a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way." Thus, I don't see why people are still trying to imply that all scientists reject psychic phenomena (that isn't even true of members of the National Academy of Sciences [1]), unless they are just saying "if they believe in psychic phenomena they aren't scientists." I'm really getting tired of the POV pushing which causes us to go over and over the same things even after an ArbCom decision as clear as this one. You notice I'm not even insisting that Wikipedia go with the scientific consensus on these issues, which is defined as the consensus within the relevant scientific discipline (and which WP is supposed to follow). But implying that a parapsychologist cannot be a scientist ipso facto is too much. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the dubious tag on Psychic, SA was warned before by the ArbCom about abuse of that very tag [2], when he used in a way which was in fact much more justifiable [3], as in that case there was actually some intellectual question, especially as the Paranormal ArbCom itself was not finished. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your reply. I hadn't looked before at Three-layer cake with frosting. It is all interesting stuff, so I'm grateful for the lead. I think it is a problematic ruling, however. From what I've read about parapsychology, some of the researchers work completely within the scientific method, but others are critical of mainstream scientific method (specificially of positivism), and prioritise giving the paranormal "a chance". Coming from a social science background I'm familiar with critiques of positivism (for example from a postmodernist or social constructionist perspective), and I find them difficult to square with the fairly simply Wikipedia approach of verificability vs truth. The ArbCom statement about establishing the epistemological status of an article subject at the outset I thought was more helpful. I think it is always helpful to ask of an article: it is an article in which discipline. Is it in television studies, or history of religion, or philosophy, or what? I suppose in the case of psychic it is an article within parapsychology. I had some problems with it unrelated to the issues that SA raised and am tempted to go and boldly edit it regardless. I expect our paths will cross again anyway, and wish you well. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well don't just leave now.... There are all sorts of ideas in parapsychology, but I've never seen the thing about questioning positivism. I know I don't. I think that you are looking at the fringe part of parapsychology, not the core. That was another issue we discussed with the ArbCom, that is, are we talking about popular "parapsychology" or academic parapsychology? That was what they were calling science. There are tons and tons of kooks who call themselves parapsychologists.

The ruling might be problematic. I'd like to hear specifics, as rational discussion of them from a moderate viewpoint is long overdue. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Paranormal - I'm not comfortable with Arbcom deciding what science is, basically. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]