Talk:Gustav Geley

Recent edits

yes - this revision doesn't suppress any skeptical information, but merely provides the whole story: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustav_Geley&diff=636011686&oldid=636011604

In doing so, it offers a complete overview.

It seems to me that skeptics should, if they want to really "debunk" paranormal claims, allow the arguments for those claims to be expressed in full. That is more scientific than a mere one sided, dismissive approach.71.202.210.124 (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You have not read Wikipedia policy on fringe theories WP:Fringe. Wikipedia does not give equal weight to fringe psychical views. You are citing psychical journals they are not considered reliable and you have copied junks and junks of material from various books, you can do this within reason but not loads and loads to clog up the article and especially not loads of material copied from other articles. But more importantly you are Steigmann/Blastikus a perm banned user from Wikipedia. And you said here months in your own words you wouldn't be coming back:

• Blastikus (talk · contribs)
• 67.188.88.161 (talk · contribs) (on this IP you said you would not be continuing to edit Wikipedia and you admitted to being the perm banned user Blastikus (Steigmann), amongst other IPS). [1]
• 98.210.147.182 (talk · contribs) (You were arguing on Dean Radin's talk-page)
• 198.189.184.243 (talk · contribs) (you were topic-banned on this university IP)
• Pottinger's cats (talk · contribs) (Another of your users which you confessed to owning on 67.118)
• Your other confirmed sock puppets

You have used Wikiversity here Steigmann Sources where you have complained about Wikipedia parapsychology pages and attacking various editors, and on your wikiversity page you have posted libel about me. Please don't deny being this person most of the sources you just put onto the Geley article were copied straight from your own Wikiversity page! Your writing style and referencing is also exactly the same. How do you respond to all of this? Do you want to be banned again? You are honestly wasting your time my friend. Goblin Face (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This was an experiment in showing how if you allow the full spectrum of sources to be represented (notice no skeptical sources are suppressed), then these claims you go around "debunking" can resist your debunking attempts. A debate with your friend here goes into further detail about this: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10152575813503218&id=295503008217

I did not expect my revisions to survive the crusade that you are engaging in here.

I have zero interest in libeling you, and actually I appreciate much of your knowledge in this - my only concern is that you are using wikipedia fringe guidelines as an excuse to wage war on a subject you personally despise (and I have found occasional misrepresentations in your edits, misrepresentation is a tradition going way back to earlier rationalist critics who also wanted to wage war on this). If you allowed the full spectrum of sources to be used, and primary sources to refute secondary sources, then your crusade would be more untenable, however, actual science might be accomplished in this area.71.202.210.124 (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The fringe material you add will just be reverted because it is not in line with Wikipedia policy, you have been told this many times but the bannings do not seem to get through to you. Please go to the Wikipedia administrator board if you want this confirmed, this is not my opinion or just me picking on you. On Wikiversity you can add anything you want it seems, they do not have that fringe policy over there and they have no problem with your edits. I have no interest in debating this topic with you because Wikipedia is not a forum for this - but note that I have nothing against you or your edits on other websites, just don't bring it over here because it causes trouble as seen by the countless disputes you have gotten into on here. But one thing I will say though it that the Society for Psychical Research are bringing out their own encyclopedia in opposition to Wikipedia. Get involved with that. They believe in all kinds of paranormal stuff despite many of the early investigators exposing fraud. They will write all their articles in favor of paranormal POV and most of the critical or skeptical stuff will be ignored. It seems my username is regularly attacked on various paranormal blogs forums or facebook by paranormal believers, and you think my edits are biased. As explained at WP:ABIAS, Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia that heavily sides with mainstream science. If you want Wikipedia editors to be writing articles supportive of the paranormal then you need to create your own Wikipedia. You are in the wrong place. Goblin Face (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing against you either, its just that it appears that sometimes you modify antagonist sources to make them appear more antagonist then they are. Given wikipedia policy, my only request is that you accurately cite antagonist sources. On the Facebook debate I linked to, there is some evidence supporting my grievances. I could privately contact you with examples - hopefully you could fix them, and then improve wikipedia's integrity, and dissuade a source of attack on its coverage of this. This action would only be of interest to and beneficial to yourself and this project. For instance, on the Geley page, the claim of fraud that I challenged states that Lambert discovered fraud but that Osty concealed it, whereas the original source (which I challenged) states that Osty told the information to Lambert, and wanted to further publicize the discovery, but thatJean Meyer and others prevented this. There are other examples in these negative edits where it is made to appear that things were more fraudulent then they actually were. If you fix this I would be willing to redact any and all attacks I have made against you.

I have a great deal of respect for much of what you have put up here. I also have nothing against censoring critical material but I believe that by allowing for the full spectrum of material to be shared, a case can be made in some cases that supersedes the objections. Much of this skeptical material adds much of value - for instance - David Marks' book offers a major assault on Uri Geller that makes it difficult to support him, but he is tendentious on the Ganzfeld experiment, and his issues with this have been addressed in other literature. You are correct about early investigations exposing fraud but in some cases the presumption of fraud can be challenged - in some cases it is not exposure at all as shown by Anita Gregory with the Vinton and Pzibriam attacks on the Schneiders (you have added extra critical material on Willi Schneider regarding a "faked cloth phantom" that if true, is commendable for you to have brought to attention, though there is direct positive opposite evidence like this that is of such weight as to inspire skepticism of the attacks). Some of these "exposures" are merely strategies for political materialism as shown here. I could offer you in private correspondence a point by point rebuttal to your DD Home article - some material on the FB debate opens up the possibility that this could happen. Etc.

You will notice that in my edits I censored no critical material (many proponents do this, but I am interested in objectivity, rather than "believer" vs "skeptic" idiocy). In SPR pages, I would make sure that critical material is put in as well, though in some cases it can be refuted. You seem to have your mind made up that this is not the case, I would be interested in debating you over the coming months off this site provided that there is no acrimonious exchange - the wikiversity material is just a nucleus of material I have subsequently acquired. I have promised to redact some of my attacks on you, and since our last exchange, I have redacted more misguided aspects of some of the previous perspectives on unrelated things I wrote.

I am blocked, not banned on wikipedia. However, you are correct that wikipedia is not supportive of my intent on it. I would be interested in exchanges elsewhere, though as I said, my intent with this was to show that the skeptical literature is not as comprehensive as its adherents suppose, and in some cases is deeply misguided.71.202.210.124 (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)