| Revision as of 20:00, 16 September 2007 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,681 editsm Automatically signing comment made by RogerDNelson← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:32, 26 March 2014 edit undo76.107.171.90 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| Hi Ersby, | Hi Ersby, | ||
| Thanks, if it was you, for restoring the GCP entry after someone blanked it. Your change removing the sentence that says the deviation on 9/11 was greater than any in three years is fine. But in fact the analyses we did for the Foundations of Physics Letters paper revealed that the day produced several statistics that represent bigger deviations than any previous day. Since these analyses are not part of the formal hypothesis testing series you looked at, your removal of the statement is formally correct, but I thought you might be interested to know the background for that statement. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | Thanks, if it was you, for restoring the GCP entry after someone blanked it. Your change removing the sentence that says the deviation on 9/11 was greater than any in three years is fine. But in fact the analyses we did for the Foundations of Physics Letters paper revealed that the day produced several statistics that represent bigger deviations than any previous day. Since these analyses are not part of the formal hypothesis testing series you looked at, your removal of the statement is formally correct, but I thought you might be interested to know the background for that statement. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| == Pseudoscience Discretionary Sanctions Notification == | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| | The ] has permitted ] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at ]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to ] and ]. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], satisfy any ], or follow any ]. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "]" section of the decision page.<p> | |||
| Please familiarise yourself with the information page at ], with the appropriate sections of ], and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. | |||
| | Ambox warning blue.svg | |||
| | icon size = 40px | |||
| }}<!-- This message is derived from Template:Uw-sanctions --> ] (]) 11:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:32, 26 March 2014
Hello Ersby. Added requested quote at for 2% above chance on Remote viewing discussion page. Paper had been cited and was listed in references with link. User:Kazuba 30 Sept 20
Hello Ersby. I beg to differ with you. The paper I cited is a later study than the one you mention. At first they got about 5-15% about the same as the Ganzfeld eperiments. It looks like they did a later study. This paper is also cited by the Parapsychological Association at Member line articles. Chance has always been 25% even in the Ganzfeld experiments. You are picking one out of four. The hit rate has never been large numbers. It has always been close to chance. I do not think 2% OVER CHANCE is easily confused with 2%. If it is, perhaps it can be spelled out to make it clearer, rather than deleting the figures all together. There should be figures here. User:Kazuba 7 Oct 2006
Hi Ersby, Thanks, if it was you, for restoring the GCP entry after someone blanked it. Your change removing the sentence that says the deviation on 9/11 was greater than any in three years is fine. But in fact the analyses we did for the Foundations of Physics Letters paper revealed that the day produced several statistics that represent bigger deviations than any previous day. Since these analyses are not part of the formal hypothesis testing series you looked at, your removal of the statement is formally correct, but I thought you might be interested to know the background for that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerDNelson (talk • contribs) 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Pseudoscience Discretionary Sanctions Notification
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.