Martinphi
 | This user is a part of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the paranormal. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
at the bottom of the page
| You scored as Cultural Creative. Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational. |
|
I live/work here in Monument Valley Utah. It is wilderness, and I have a lot of time to study, especially Parapsychology.
I'd be very happy to hear from you.
Archive in main namespace
You created Archive Martinphi 1 in the main wiki namespace, when I suspect you intended to create User talk:Martinphi/Archive 1 or something? eaolson 04:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- You can use the {{db-author}} tag to have them speedy deleted. I've already tagged them as such. eaolson 05:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
EVP
Thank you for adding the attribution to Smyth, Bayless and Raudive in the opening definition, and AA-EVP in the following paragraph. I appreciate your cooperation, and hope you don't view it as a concession. My concern is that an UNattributed definition is perceived as "Wikipedia defines EVP as...". Again, thank you, and although we often differ, I hope this article can become more of a collaboration and less of a battleground. --- LuckyLouie 01:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- And thank you (: No, I may have mis-understood when there were battles over "attribution." I never had any problem whatsoever with saying who though it up, invented the term, popularized it etc. I routinely put that kind of info into summaries. I just didn't like it to say "believers," or whatever. Maybe it was all a misunderstanding.
- When people said they wanted to include "Who believes it," that to me (seeing how they changed the summary) meant "what kind of person believes it," ie, to hammer that "only believers in the paranormal would believe it."Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think we can get PerfectBlue to endorse the current opening definition. Come by my Talk page. --- LuckyLouie 16:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I plugged in the Macrae name. Now I will go seek User:Zoe. --- LuckyLouie 20:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Mediation is fine
I don't see any evidence of these issues being discussed to resolution on the talkpage previously. I don't consider the version you and LuckyLouie developed to be "consensus" since you did not get input from me. I would gladly enter mediation. --ScienceApologist 06:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
ESP
Check out the eighth entry under the "see also" section. I was engaged in a small vandalism edit war last night, and couldn't follow-up properly. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is kinda funny, but the anon editor who put it there said he wasn't joking! He even gave me two sources (blogs - and therefore no good - but sources nontheless....:)
- In response to the note that you left of my user page. Here is evidence that people get it confused. I'm not making it up, and I'm not vandalising. [1] (you have to scroll down to the bottom) and [2] I'm going to fix it on the ESP page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.7.167 (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent point. Why didn't I think of that? :) (Extra-sensory perception, not ESP!) Heh! I'll take a look at the other stuff later, looks interesting! And I think Solar is up to date on the recent studies that show a large percentage, if not a majority of scientists, believe in psychic or esp abilities. Solar had references to studies, but I'm not sure what happened to those references. It's a tough battle keeping up with the super-skeptics (or "pseudo-skeptics" and "cynics" as a friend of mine likes to call them...) Dreadlocke ☥ 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Generally, deleting stuff from your own talk page isn't considered vandalism. It's usually only a problem if you delete warnings from administrators, or a significant history of abuse. I wouldn't worry about it, it's an anonymous IP range that is might even be used by a number of people behind some firewall. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, here are guidelines for user and talk pages: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Wikipedia:User page. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I accidentally put back in the ESPN thing when removing that horrid summary edit.
- LOL! I figured as much! That's why I made my funny little edit summary. (Well, to me it was funny...;) You are so right about that horrid summary edit, it was so frightening to behold I was afraid to even touch it...glad you took it on...:D I'm amazed at the things other editors put in. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Psychic page
- I am so glad you're involved in the
ESPPsychic article, it's like a breath of fresh air! I now seem to be engaged with User Eloquence, who seems to have a long history of experience at Wikipedia, but doesn't seem to understand the basic rules, like WP:3RR. It's wearing. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am so glad you're involved in the
- Yah, that's the ticket, the Psychic article..that's the one! Glad you were psychic enough to realize that! (Jeez, I must still have the flu... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 01:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Say, I really like your new intro to Psychic! I think it addresses both sides (although the pseudo-skeptics won't be happy until it says "All psychics are frauds and there's no such thing..." Anyway, I hope your version sticks! I'll work to make it so. I'm tired of arguing over a single word, you actually did what I've been suggesting and added detailed content! That's the way to go, but some of these editors just want to be lazy and throw in a biased, loaded WP:WTA. Good job! Dreadlocke ☥ 02:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks (: ! Did you take a look at the essay on my user page? I really have no idea whether it is any good or whether it would be usefull, but if we could make it good, it might save a lot of time and argument and having to go over the same points with pseudo-skepitcs again and again. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've started reading it, and I think you have some pretty good ideas! I'm thinking you might want to move it off your user page and into a sandbox by creating a user subpage. You can add a section on comments and things. perfectblue has an excellent sandbox page you might want to look at: User:Perfectblue97/Sandbox. I'd be honored to help with it, although you seem to have a much better grasp of things than I do. You know, I think perfectblue might be a great choice to contribute to such a project. Then we can involve the entire Wikiproject Paranormal -- it's something we need. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey dude, just fyi, I got on Eloquence's back for engaging in an edit war with me and gave him a WP:3RR warning. He doesn't accept it, even though an admin agreed with my assessment, he even mentioned that he thought you were guilty of the same. I don't see it, but I thought I'd let you know he was thinking along those lines, and thought you might want to check out WP:3RR just to make sure you're up on the concept. Keep up the good work man! Dreadlocke ☥ 01:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I came across this as I was ambling around RfCs, and figured you'd know enough generally to make some good input, as well as perhaps knowing people who would be interested in contributing to this discussion. I myself have no confidence in the subject whatsoever, so I'll abstain unless an acute need for me arises. ;-) V-Man737 07:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Paranormal phenomona
I didn't actually change the text of the page to say that not all paranormal phenomena were disputed, (though I reworded it slightly to still get the message over that most are disputed), I just put that wording in the edit description box.
Just to clarify, there are many things that are still counted as being "paranormal phenomena" on the grounds that they happened and were once considered to be to paranormal in nature, but which were later found to be "contrived phenomena" (phenomena faked through hoaxes). There are also many paranormal phenomena that occurred in myths and legends which are only regarded as being myth and legend, and which are not being portrayed as real. Therefore they are not disputed. They are real legends. Equally, many phenomena have never been evaluated by science to a sufficient level for there to be any actual dispute between science and the paranormal. This isn't to say that the phenomena is genuine (or anything similar), merely that the scientific community has never paid enough attention to it to put up a scientific argument against it.
For example, native American hunter legends? How often does a Native American stand up and say that "Ancestor X was really lead to water by the spirit of Animal Y, teaching us lesson Z", only to have a scientist stand up and say "That's impossible because that kind of animal doesn't live in that part of the country"?
paranormal essay
Would you be horrible offended if I drafted my own essay along these lines?
perfectblue 11:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Imitation is the highest form of flattery." -Unknown as of yet (CURSE YOU, GOOGLE!) V-Man737 01:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
John Edward
There were objections to using the word "acts" as well, [3] so I was sticking with performs. This very issue is under mediation and the opening should probably remain the same until mediation is over. I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to change it back to performs until the mediation is over. Please feel free to add your thought of changing to "acts as" to the mediation, once it's underway. The mediation is here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Edward. It's kinda silly, but it needs to be straightened out. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I thought about using "hosts", but that could indicate someone who's hosting and not the focus of the show. Last year I put out a call to try and find a better word, I came up with "performs", which ended a long-running dispute between five editors. Now this single editor comes in and forces it to go to mediation. Silliness. "Performs" is a perfect word, that's exactly what he's doing - whether he's got psychic abilities or not - performing! It's splendly NPOV! We were all so happy with it, skeptics and believers and neutrals alike! Dreadlocke ☥ 05:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- "He is best known as the host and psychic medium on his shows". Well, I like it, but the disputing editors would freak out about that, claiming that Wikipedia is saying he is a psychic medium. It's a weird view of NPOV, and I hope your and perfectblue's essays are able to counter this type of crap eventually. He is a psychic medium, it is his profession, whether he has supernatural abilities or not. I don't know why that can't just be said, then add the skeptical viewpoint to the body of the article. It's what other encyclopedias do about some paranormal subjects, then again some put in qualifiers.
- Honestly, I don't think our readers are stupid enough to read the article and say, "Look Marge, Wikipedia thinks Edward's powers are real because they said he is a psychic medium by profession - can you believe they fall for this stuff?". I think the real reason for all the skeptical qualifiers is that the folks who think he's a fake only want the article to say that he's a fake. I have no real idea, myself, but I say give the guy his due for his success, and give him the benefit of the doubt! They haven't proven he doesn't have psychic abilities! Anyway, sorry for the long diatribe! Dreadlocke ☥ 06:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Hey, hey, hey. Now this is an idea: "There should be a policy on biography pages saying that the person is generally assumed not to be a fake. What do you say we try to get it included in the WP:BLP policy. I would be glad to take it to Jimbo for an opinion, once we have it in play! With his concerns over libel, he might just back it! The policy already says "these [biographies of living persons] require a degree of sensitivity". It's not a far push to "assume not a fake" much like assume good faith guideline! Dreadlocke ☥ 06:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Essay
Oh my! I cannot stop laughing!! This is hilarious! I love it! Brilliant! Dreadlocke ☥ 06:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, I see you're starting to get some good comments from the group! Dreadlocke ☥
WTA discussion
Have you been watching this little discussion: Bad example of claim in this guideline? I'm getting long-winded over there, but man is it hard to get a concept across to some editors! Dreadlocke ☥ 07:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Paranormal guidelines
Hi Martinphi, I think this is an excellent start, there are a few parts that could be expanded and a few that could be clarified, but overall it's really great to see you've starting putting some guidelines together. I'll see what I can add when I get a chance. Best wishes - Solar 13:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
John Edward
If you collect the audio of John Edward from a number of different shows ( There is no hurry) you will recogize he frequently uses the exact same patter to draw out a response to build on. He's a pro. This is how he makes his living. Plus you are seeing it on TV. TV is a wonderful media for passing off illusions as reality by editing and its limitation of what you see is what you THINK you get. Remember David Blain's self levitation when he rose off the ground for about a foot. User: Kazuba 2 Feb 2007
In the art of deception anything goes. There are no rules. There is nothing too low. That's what makes it so fascinating, at least to myself that is. In a way every magician is a scam artist. Some much better than others. I love astonishment. User: Kazuba
Not a skeptic
I think human error through over-enthusiasm, experimenter effect, the belief in unsubstiated stories, a misinterpretation of mundane experiences, preconception, fringe experiments, a desire for human transcendence, and duality, are the biggest culprits for the poor success of parapsychology. I know of no contemporary literature that really explores this to my satisfaction.
I like learnig about individuals. I find people fascinating. I love to read about what may make a person what they are. The history of what constructed the present. Right now I am trying to gather material on experiments with Arthur Ford. Good historical research takes time, patience and luck. I am happy with what I do. It is more than enough. Juat ask my wife. Recently added a touch to Ingo Swann. It is interesting, as far as I know, he never makes the temperature drop any more. This ability seems to be forgotten. Perhaps these powers that originally put him in the limelight just don't last. Bet he sells a lot of books and art.User:Kazuba 03 Feb 2007
- The television shows and books stem from his successful private business as a psychic medium, so I don't think we can really judge from the television show - after all, it is television and it can make him appear to be a fake just as easily as making him look like a fraud. I assume innocent until proven guilty! There has never been a single individual that worked on his shows who has come forth to say he a fraud - and in the entertainment business, gossip and publicity like that are the norm. As a matter of fact, his entire staff - right down to IATSE union cameramen and stagehands have expressed a solid belief in his abilities. Not to mention Larry King... It would be a very unusual silence if he is indeed was or is using hot reading on his show.:) Dreadlocke ☥ 21:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)