| Revision as of 01:55, 1 February 2007 editDreadstar (talk | contribs)53,180 edits →ESP: Psychic, I mean Psychic← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:03, 1 February 2007 edit undoDreadstar (talk | contribs)53,180 edits →ESP: good jobNext edit → | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
| :::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... :) ] <small> ] </small> 01:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | :::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... :) ] <small> ] </small> 01:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Say, I really like your new intro to Psychic! I think it addresses both sides (although the pseudo-skepitcs 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 ]. Good job! ] <small> ] </small> 02:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:03, 1 February 2007
Please put all new content
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.
Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
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 "Misplaced Pages 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."Martin (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. (you have to scroll down to the bottom) and I'm going to fix it on the ESP page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.7.167 (talk • contribs) 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: Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines, Misplaced Pages:User page. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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 Misplaced Pages, 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-skepitcs 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)