User talk:Martinphi: Difference between revisions

	Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Paranormal primer
	Controversy in parapsychology

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:02, 19 March 2007

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.

Please put all new content

at the bottom of the page

-Thanks

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.

Cultural Creative

94%

Postmodernist

88%

Existentialist

81%

Idealist

63%

Modernist

63%

Fundamentalist

44%

Materialist

31%

Romanticist

25%

Hi all,

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^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your many excellent contributions to the parapsychology article as well as your many contributions to the area as a whole. - Solar 23:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your many outstanding contributions to paranormal articles. - Dreadlocke ☥ 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific evidence

Hi Martinphi,

some responses to your comments on my talk page:

Martinphi: Whey you state that there "is no scientific evidence," that is not a strictly scientific thing to say. We don't know if there is. There might be someone who has absolutely proven it. Maybe they even did a study. If they sent the study to a peer-reviewed journal whose editors happened to be members of CSI- it would never have been published.

::Candy: I feel that my statement is accurate. It's not unscientific to state there is no scientific evidence. My statement falls outside the role of science. If we were being pedantic, then you have a right to say that I cannot fully support it on the grounds that I have not read all paranormal and scientific research to be able to draw this logical conclusion. However, I don't feel that I have to. As a practicing scientist (who is not unfamiliar with paranormal research - but also not read in any depth) I have never denied the possibility of many paranormal activities. I have simply asked for evidence that thay exist. To my mind, repeatable, peer reviewed scientific evidence is the level of acceptance that is valid. Otherwise, I consider unsupported claims to be delusional.

Your response simple has too many "ifs". It really doesn't matter. The research if it exists would have found its way into a major scientific research journal for peer review. (Incidentally, just being published in a major journal does not imply it is peer reveiwed appropriately.)

Clearly, the burden of proof falls on those who believe that EVP has a paranormal origin. The EVP page should fall under there is clearly no paranormal explanation. Currently, the view that is presented by in the EVP article is that the burden of proof actually rests on the side of science to disprove it. (I don't know whether you agree that the artcile is written to imply this but it clearly reads that way to me). The scientific method clearly shows that paranormal EVP explanation have the burden of proof resting on them. Ergo, this side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The burden of proof lies with those on whose claim something exists.

Martinphi: The problem with the article is that we can't just state things like "It hasn't been considered." People who call themselves defenders of science, but are really pseudoskeptics, want to say it as if there is evidence against, which there isn't, of course. Anyway, there wouldn't be a problem if everything were stated in a strictly scientific manner (and if we left out partisan sources). Please if you respond, do so on the bottom of my talk page- thanks ::Candy. Absolutely. I fully support you on this. Candy 12:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

APA/Harvard Referencing

The references list shouldn't be numbered, but some bullets would be nice. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Crop circle. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Stifle (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your warning that I may be in danger of violating 3RR on crop circle: I don't know how you got wind of this, but are you aware that I reported another user for what I though might be 3RR on the same article yesterday? I guess that he reported me to you as a way of evening the score. I wish administrators wouldn't participate in this kind of politics. I see no other reason for your warning, as I was warned about this rule once before, and thus a repeat was not necessary. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I handled that report (the other user was blocked for 18 hours), and as you had already made three reverts on the article, I wished to ensure that you didn't end up the same way. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. I guess there's a good reason for AGF! Sorry. Thanks for the warning! Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to [[Template:Highssp]] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Crop circle: Martinphi makes three reverts: 18:53, 11 March 2007 20:59, 11 March 2007 21:41, 11 March 2007. Seven minutes after Martin's third revert (and Myriam's first edit in hours), Myriam arrives, first edit ever to the article 21:49, 11 March 2007, removes text 21:52, 11 March 2007 that had been previously fact tagged by Martin 17:02, 7 February 2007, then after a few intermediate edits, made an edit to a wording similar to the version Martinphi had previously reverting to 00:14, 12 March 2007, inserting both "many" and an attribution for the second part of the sentence.

Remote viewing: Martinphi edits the intro 01:12, 6 March 2007, twice reverts to that version 16:47, 10 March 2007 19:10, 10 March 2007 (which had been reverted by two different editors). Myriam does the next revert to Martinphi's version 15:23, 11 March 2007 and later removes "purported" 21:47, 11 March 2007, as Martinphi has done a number of times at Psychic for similar reasons16:33, 9 March 2007 16:51, 10 March 2007.

Psychic: Martinphi has made many edits taking out phrases such as "purported", "profess to be" etc for example 20:30, 2 March 2007 with the edit summary (" 'psychic' doesn't mean people who say they are psychic- it only means people who are psychic. If they aren't when they claim to be, they aren't psychic.") also 15:36, 3 March 2007, 20:50, 3 March 2007. Then, Martinphi reverted the inclusion of the disputed nature in the definition 15:28, 4 March 2007, edit summary: "(Let's leave the sentence concerning the use of the word as a noun seperate from whether or not the phenomena exists. One topic per sentence)"

Myriam arrives (after Martinphi has made three reverts to the article) 21:08, 5 March 2007 and after a few minor edits, splits the sentence as Martinphi had earlier 23:47, 6 March 2007 summary: (I gave it better sentence structure). Next day, reversions by Martinphi 17:05, 7 March 2007 (It's a good change. It sounds like the definition of the word. Then the next centence says that some don't believe in it. End of story, totally NPOV), Myriam 30 minutes later 17:35, 7 March 2007 (I saw your change but I don't understand how a person can be just any person who says they are psychic?), then Martinphi 20:45, 7 March 2007 (Don't give in to bad writing and POV-pushing.). March 8, same revert by Myriam 13:44, 8 March 2007 (I think this way of wording it is OK, but it needs to be two sentences, otherwise it isn't good writing.), Martinphi 14:40, 8 March 2007, Martin again 16:38, 8 March 2007, Myriam to a version with wording similar to earlier Martinphi versions from days and many edits earlier (and non-mainstream wording that I haven't seen anyone else propose on this article) 18:33, 8 March 2007 (I think this is better, because it just defines what the word "psychic" means, and then it gives both sides of the debate, so then people can make up their own minds. This said "Edit conflict") (earlier version 16:04, 5 March 2007), Martinphi revert again 18:56, 8 March 2007.

On Talk:Psychic, Myriam says "the skeptical part should have its own paragraph" 18:17, 8 March 2007, a repeat of Martin's earlier suggestions 20:43, 7 March 2007, 16:42, 8 March 2007. A comment about "edit conflict" 18:37, 8 March 2007 which frankly seems like an attempt to make the editor seem like a newbie considering the use of edit summaries and reverts from the beginning. Comments from Martinphi (echoing what Myriam said above): "I like to just define a word. Then say that there are objections to the phenomenon being real." 19:04, 8 March 2007. A couple editors agree with Martinphi, and no posts on the talk page from Myriam for a couple days. When I start a new thread of discussion, Myriam makes an "I agree with Martin" post within an hour of Martinphi's response 17:39, 10 March 2007.

Similar patterns at Electronic Voice Phenomenon and talk page, I can add diffs if there is interest.

Here's the diffs only version of potential 3RR reverts (from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Martinphi)

Crop circle: Martinphi reverts:

Myriam Tobias revert: 00:14, 12 March 2007

Psychic:

Comments

Myriam Tobias has edited a total of ten pages by my count (plus talk pages for those articles) since the account was created on March 5, and every single one is a page Martinphi has also edited. Many of these are pages on which Martinphi is involved in content disputes and has approached or exceeded 3RR. His edits and talk page comments consistently agree with Martinphi's, and he often appears within minutes of Martin's edits to back him up, often only when Martin has made three reverts or when it is pointed out that a majority of editors disagree with him. The editing patterns and online appearances are just too improbable to be coincidence (particularly when those ten pages include obscure ones like Ganzfeld experiment and Odic force). The use of edit summaries and reversions seems to indicate an experienced wiki user as opposed to a new editor who has only been here about a week.

It appears that this sockpuppet is being used to bolster "consensus" and avoid 3RR. While it's possible that it isn't a sockpuppet, if it isn't it seems almost certainly to be a meatpuppet, which should also be looked into by admins. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: since filing this I have requested a checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Martinphi. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milo H Minderbinder is quite correct in most of the things he says (and I congratulate him for his perception). But he has come to several incorrect conclusions. First, Myriam is a she, not a he. Second, Myriam is not a sock puppet.

Milo is however right in that a pattern is detectable. Myriam and I share the same computer. We often talk about the pages in question. I have urged Myriam to create a Wikipedia account, as we share the same interests. I have discussed the pages in question with her, and in light of our discussions, she has agreed with me, and I with her.

There is nothing more suspicious in this than there is in the fact that Dreadlocke and Davkal and I nearly always agree on things and support each other's edits, except that Myriam and I are sharing the same computer (we use different accounts, and we have set up different browsers to keep our bookmarks separate). I doubt there is a way to prove to Wikipedia that we are not the same person; however, there must also be a dispensation for two people who share (and have to share) the same computer.

As far as being a meat puppet, Myriam has a right to agree with me if she wants to; she has a right to support me if she so desires; and she has a right to edit Wikipedia as would any other user. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what else to say except that- I agree with Martin. Why couldn't you just have asked us? Myriam Tobias 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you share the same computer then it is obvious meatpuppetry. One user would have to log off and then discuss changes for the other to be able to log in and just happen to continue the same reverts. IrishGuy ^talk 17:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any two users can discuss things on Wikipedia; that isn't meat puppetry. Any two users can revert; that isn't meat puppetry. Any two users can support each others edits, even by reversion; that isn't meat puppetry. Meat puppetry is when one user has an account for the sole purpose of supporting the position of others. The only reason you could call it meat puppetry is that we share a computer, and this is necessary. Are you an admin? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked your roommate to sign up. Your roommate has supported your edits. That is meatpuppetry. Yes, I am an admin. IrishGuy ^talk 20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not my roommate. I didn't ask her to sign up to help me. I discussed Wikipedia with her, and said she should sign up. I'm not using her to make my points. But if we discuss, and agree, there is no difference between her and other editors. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I've been accused of sock or meat puppetry, see section above. I don't really know how to combat this charge, besides responding as I have. I am worried that the other user who shares my computer will not have the same rights as other users of Wikipedia. I also see no merit in the charge that it is meat puppetry just because we share the same interest, edit mostly the same articles, and discuss the edits, or support each other's edits. I do that with other users also, and they with me.

The main question, as Irishguy says, is that we live near each other! But a meat puppet is an account only for supporting another account, right? Is it the rule that one person can't support another? What is wrong with this? I can't figure out what either of us is supposed to have done wrong. We have a right to do all things we have done! What can I do? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading on meat puppets, and that is really, really bad. It is against the American way! I'm not joking. It is guilty, and no way to prove yourself innocent! This is terrible, and it is a blight on Wikipedia! Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The shared computer relationship does not make the two of you meat puppets. What makes you meat puppets is that you are using the fact that you have two accounts to get around WP:3RR. If you stopped doing that and apologized, I suspect that everyone would leave you alone. --Selket ^Talk 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. read WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets if you have any doubts that you are being meatpuppets. -- Selket ^Talk 01:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response to my help request. But I am really bothered by that. What it means is that Myriam has to be treated as a second class citizen of Wikipedia. She can't do the things that other editors regularly do, such as helping revert non-consensus changes, or take part in some dispute or other. She doesn't get reverts if I've also reverted. Because she is involved in the same pages, and also has similar opinions, she has to be treated second class. This just isn't right. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it may seem unfair, but remember that 3RR is not a right, it's an electric fence. I try to follow the 1 revert rule, myself. The idea behind the 3RR is to prevent edit wars and build consensus through discussion on the talk page. I'm sure that you and Myriam can each add your own perspective to the debate, so nothing is lost, and the two of you would each be making a more substantial impact. -- Selket ^Talk 01:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand that Wikipedia's policies, while intended to be fair, are not designed to create a fully functional judiciary with civil rights, innocent-until-proven-guilty, etc. They are designed to facilitate the construction of an online encylopedia. As an illustration of why meatpuppetry is problematic, suppose the following: you and I are in a dispute on a controversial article. Suddenly a new account shows up, editing immediately after me on all of the same articles I edit, reinforcing my views and reverting to my version in excess of WP:3RR. Or say 3 new accounts show up with the same behavior, and I say those are just my housemates, we have the same interests and share a point of view. It opens the door to abuse - I accept your explanation that it's a friend of yours, but if the practice were condoned, it would become widespread and impossible to tell sockpuppets from friends who share the same computer and edit the same articles right after one another from the same POV. Selket is correct; it's not that your friend can't edit from the same computer - it's that you shouldn't use each other's accounts as an echo chamber on disputed articles, nor participate in edit wars together or game the WP:3RR rule. If you discuss your edits regularly and edit the same pages, then make one edit representing your views, rather than an edit followed quickly by a supposedly independent "I agree with that edit" and reversion from the second account. Does that make sense? MastCell 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. I accept it. What they need is a technical solution, online ID, but I understand the problem. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Nice job on the editing tonight. I've been finding most of your edits extremely helpful, even if I'm changing and/or reverting a few minor things. Thanks! --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychic edit

Would you be insulted were I the one to tell you that that is a good edit you did on the Psychic article?

Horribly. ;) Thanks. Noclevername 02:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks a lot better. Boy, just when I thought that article had almost made it into accuracy and neutrality, it became an opinion dump again! (Sigh) We keep trying, though. Noclevername 02:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've tried to edit the "Popular Culture" section to mention TV and tabloid psychics; check it out and see what you think. Let the inevitable ****-storm of disputes commence! Noclevername 03:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed some wording to make it a bit more inclusive, but I think otherwise it looks good. Noclevername 04:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "clairvoyant" since it's unproven (epecially in the cases of these flim-flammers) but the rest looks good. (At least, until everybody and his uncle starts sticking in their uncited, misspelled opinions. Que sera, sera.) Noclevername 04:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVP

Agreed, though we should get some other people together on a new version, else they will just say that they had consensus and that we went against it.

Having Bauss separate is monumental POV pushing. It makes it seem as if he is the definitive answer. He's probaly the least notable person there. Macrae has had more support from believers and more criticism from skeptics than Bauss has had anything.

perfectblue 09:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not a qualified parapsychologist (I research other's work, but don't experiment), I am an experienced analyst. I've written enough reports and analysis off wiki about serious topics to know how things should be done, and I know all of the POV pushing tricks in the book. Putting Bauss last, and splitting him off to make him stand out, is about as obvious as POV pushing gets. You can be rest assured that if Bauss had concluded that "EVP was real, and paranormal", our mutual acquaintances would be rushing to either delete him under WP:RS, or to put him back in the chronology section before you could say NPOV.

perfectblue 09:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pseudoskepticism

I'm decidedly unhappy with this category. It's a distinctly pejorative label, and very POV to apply to articles. There are almost no places—probably none—where it should be added. I am minded to take it to WP:CFD, unless persuaded otherwise. — BillC^talk 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't accept that argument. The category in question is merely used to attack scepticism. I think I'll will take it to Cfd, and let the debate there settle it one way or the other. You are free of course to take there any categories you feel are similarly compromised. — BillC^talk 20:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is linked in bold on the CfD box on the category page with the text "this category's entry". — BillC^talk 22:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Pseudoskepticism is a real reaction that people can have", I don't think pseudoskepticism is being exhibited in response to, say Uri Geller, so are you okay with me removing the cat? — BillC^talk 22:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my addition to the category's delete page. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 22:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journals

SPR - Journal of the Society for Psychical Research

ASPR - Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research

--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptical NPOV

Thanks. I know the feeling; "skeptical" is supposed to mean "waiting until all the evidence is in", not "I've made up my mind, so there!" as so many seem to think it does. My interest is in accurate, verifiable information, not touting a viewpoint or spouting accepted dogma (I thought that's what Wikipedia was supposed to be about) but apparently there are some who don't get that science is about questioning and testing everything and not taking anything for granted. Noclevername 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we live in the age when Truthiness and the Chewbacca defense rule the world. Too many people believe something is true just because they want it to be true, even when it's already been disproven by direct evidence (Flat Earth, Creationism). I guess I'm just trying to fight against that a little here (talk about a never-ending struggle!) I'm always glad to find someone else who appreciates outdated concepts like "facts" and "evidence"; let's hope they don't become totally obsolete. Noclevername 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Where can I find that Ration Skeptics list? Noclevername

@@ Line 239: / Line 239: @@
 ::P.S. Where can I find that Ration Skeptics list? [[User:Noclevername|Noclevername]]
+==Warning==
+{{warning|Adding [[:Category:Science]] to paranormal pages is a violation of [[WP:POINT]]. Don't do it any more. --[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] 00:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)}}