User talk:Martinphi

FAQ about me and my editing style User talk:Martinphi/Template

Orgone

Hey Mr M. Orangemarlin and TMtolouse are back to adding the POV tag to Orgone again, for no reason I can discern (in case you hadn't noticed). I've filed another ANI about it Wikipedia:ANI#Orgone.2C_again.... just thought you'd want to know. --Ludwigs2 04:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. A. Allen

Check out my visit long ago. A.A. Allen talk page Kazuba (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromises

You do realize if you and I can compromise to several of these articles, most people won't complain. I appreciate what you just did! Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming campaign

Hi Martin, I spotted that you ammended the 'spiteful' heading on the WP:POV page. The user (et al.) is now throwing a tantrum and has engaging in a flaming campaign as part of their protest.This includes an allegation of me somehow being an anti-semite becasue I declared myself a policy nazi. Would you mind advising please, if you have time. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet reverted everything. But if you have a chance please can you take a look at this please and see what you think. My personal opinion is that the user is engaging, at the very least, in meat puppetry, more difficult to prove is the possibility that the same user is employing different accounts from differnent IP's, home, work, perhaps. An unresolved sock puppet case has been filed, if you would like to add a comment you can do it here. You are of course free to ignore all of this! Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Valueyou In terms of flaming - I was unaware I was doing anything incorrect as I am a fairly recent editor here. The point is Semitransgenic continues to attempt to charge me with this false silliness. I am sure that Semitransgenic would like to see me kicked off of wiki as I dare oppose Semitransgenic's aggressive language and editing tactics. What a waste of time. Valueyou (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Martin for drawing other comments here. See VY's talk for comments by others, the user has been instructed to go to WP:DR. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLease ignore above, issues have been addressed for now. Best. S. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For now! : ) Cheers. S. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder

This RfAr was opened and involves you - you seem to have missed Shoemaker's message about this, so I'm reminding you. Thanks. Garden. 14:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychokinesis revert

Greetings. I reverted your edit to the disputed tag on Psychokinesis. I understand why you made the edit you did, based on the talkpage, but I dont' think that is the intended use of the field. Please see my suggestion in the article talkpage and see if we can have a less garrish alternative to point out the article-issues. thanks! -Verdatum (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blossom Goodchild

Seriously? You should know better than this. [1] X MarX the Spot (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, just lost track reloading the history page. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. :) I think I'm gonna unwatch the page and let it go down the shitter. The vandals can have it. There are more important articles to focus on. Be well buddy. X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's no need. It's been G4 speedied. :) X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: It took me a moment to figure out what you were referring to as it was rather vague, but now I follow. I made a mess for moment, but I think I've got everything back to the way it should be. Since the admin that closed the AfD was agreeable to moving the article back into mainspace, the reposted content speedy deletion is borderline. I recommend filing another AfD if you think the article should be deleted in it's current form. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I blocked an IP regarding that article? I don't remember blocking anybody specifically for vandalizing that article. It appears that there are lots of IPs interested in her for whatever reason. I suspect that the vandalism is just a lull. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Oh, okay. I blocked that IP back in 2007, which is why I didn't remember that. It was over a different article, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Not a problem. Everything is all good. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Daniel David Palmer; Sonopuncture; Jenny Randles; Robert Monroe; Beri'ah; True-believer syndrome; Yetzirah; History of astrology; List of magazines of anomalous phenomena; Atziluth; Loka; Sylvan Muldoon; Paranormal?; Crystal ball; Daryl Bem; Edward Bach; Mutual UFO Network; Jason Karl; National Laboratory of Psychical Research

Cleanup: Complementary and alternative medicine; Therapeutic touch; James Randi Educational Foundation
Merge: Silva Method; Asiyah; Applied kinesiology
Add Sources: Spirit guide; Past life regression; Poltergeist
Wikify: William Cullen; Simran; Phineas Quimby
Expand: Sports injuries; Pre-existence; Stephen Barrett

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Science?

If I were a professional scientist in physics and lasers (what ever) and did studies and experiments using precise measurements and data, statistics, the latest high tech electronic equiptment, personal observations, testamonies, etc. seeking an answer to: "What is largest number of angels that can stand on the tip of a pin?" and complained my most accurate positive data was being "ridiculed and attacked" by "close minded atheist" skeptics; would I be doing science if my stuff showed up in some type of scientific journal? Kazuba (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science isn't defined by the use of lasers or statistics. If you use the scientific method to generate and test hypotheses which describe and predict aspects of the natural world, then you're "doing science". MastCell ^Talk 04:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) lol - oh, I gotta chime in on this one.

first, science (if it's defined by anything) is defined by methodology, and that includes creating and structuring the parameters of your research question. the problem with a question like "What is largest number of angels that can stand on the tip of a pin?" is that you'd need to define 'angel' in terms that can meaningfully measured in terms of size, volume, or other relevant material properties that might play into the relationship with a pin tip. If you can't do that, you can't develop a research design that would be remotely acceptable to other scientists.

second, merely showing up in a scientific journal is irrelevant. the purpose of scientific journals is to present research to other scientists so that they can investigate and try to replicate the results. If no one else can replicate the results, or even understand the research, then it will ultimately be ignored as an unimpartant publication.

third if you can meaningly define the question, and if other scientists can replicate and use the result, then guess what: you're doing science. hooray! --Ludwigs2 04:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some thought-provoking points are made here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this took off. This is what I put on Kazuba's talk page

No, but you'd be doing science if you asked "are there such things as angels." In the case you describe, it is assumed a priori that the angels exist. Doing the processes of science on that which assumes the unproven [angels exist] is not science, but doing the processes of science to prove the unproven is science. However, no one has clearly defined what "science" is. That's just my opinion. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Ludwigs.... Once you prove the existence and properties of angels, you can do science on them relative to pins. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And once you establish replicable properties of angels, they cease to be supernatural and become phenomena subject to natural laws, open to scientific testing. However, producing a statistical anomaly which you claim shows that there must be angels on the pin is a mark of pseudoscience. The meaning of science has changed since its 18th century meaning of general information, and while there is much disagreement about pinning down how to define it, there is virtual unanimity on issues of demarcation.[2] . . dave souza, talk 09:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One must also consider the great gaping holes between the atoms and how angels interact with with electromagnetic fields (Gaiman & Pratchett, 1990).

More usefully, I think that one of the key issues for deciding how to treat parapsychology is whether SETI astronomers vs. UFOlogists is a good analogy, or if it all assumes the existence of angels. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ugh. The science/pseudoscience thing is such a pain...

it seems to me that the issue here is the relationship between research and metaphysics: 'theory' is always metaphysical, and research is the tool that bridges the gap between the metaphysical and physical reality. A metaphysical claim (a theory) might be correct or incorrect; everyone knows this. Scientific research is aimed at finding practical, reproducible applications of the theory - it accepts the theory as de facto true if it can find them, and basically ignores the theory if it can't. Pseudoscientific research tends to get caught up in trying to demonstrate or 'prove' whether the ontological claim is true or false - the practical use of the theory is basically irrelevant to the effort. so (for comparison) the theory of gravity is an unprovable ontological claim about the nature of the universe, but researchers have found nearly infinite practical uses for it, and so it is accepted (de facto) as a scientific truth. The existence of angels is also an unprovable ontological claim about the nature of the universe; however, a question like "how many angels fit on the tip of a pin" is quixotic, designed to challenge the ontology directly rather than put the theory to any practical use. that makes it pseudoscientific. the same thing with SETI astronomers and UFOlogists - SETI people have a well-defined research program that produces practical results on a daily basis (i.e., streams of radio telescope data to be analyzed). UFOlogists spend most of their time trying to convince others to consider the possibility of UFOs on the weight of anecdotal evidence (and even fall into government cover-up theories when they can't find sufficiently convincing anecdotes).

really there's a lot of overlap between the two, and the stark division that gets drawn between them is so misleading. I mean, what do you do with someone like Tesla, who is such a completely typical pseudoscientist except that most things he did worked? --Ludwigs2 19:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Left Half of the Half Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		I hereby award thee, Martinphi, the Left Half of the Half Barnstar, for willingness to compromise and for nice messages, by thee and by Orangemarlin, demonstrating co-opero-bridge-ification of a type likely to assist significantly in constructing this encyclopedia. Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For compromise with Orangemarlin at Talk:Orgone, and for nice messages. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :D We need to perform more co-bridgeoperations. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Dames Prediction, What was really said?

http://allnewsweb.com/page50.html It is now claimed Ed Dames, who did not find Steve Fossett with search parties as he said he would,(no effort at all) supposedly pinpointed Steve Fossett's crash site by remote viewing on the "Coast to Coast" show. All News Web This would have to be 23 May 2008 show. This is the only Coast to Coast show between the time Fossett was lost, 3 Sept 2008 and found, 28 Sept 2008, when Dames appeared. Does anyone have the "EXACT" words of Dame's prediction? Are they the same as what he now claims?Kazuba (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Psionics

There is discussion over there regarding a proposal to merge the relevant portions of Psionics to Psychokinesis and leave the former as a disambiguation page for paranormal vs. gaming uses of the term. Nobody has yet indicated that the two terms are distinct enough to require separate articles - would you care to weigh in one way or another? Thanks, - Eldereft (cont.) 19:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storme Aerison

I nominated the article, whose content you removed with your concerns about policies, for deletion.Synchronism (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A unusual favor

First of all, let me start by saying that I know that this is outside of your normal area of interest. In fact, that's part of the reason that I'm talking to you. In an ongoing discussion over at Talk:John Wilkes Booth, we are at a standstill over the issue of fringe theories. I've just gone to WP:FRINGE and looked at the user pages of several contributors, until I found two who seemed to have opposite views on WP:FRINGE. You are one of the two that I found. Would you be willing to look at Talk:John Wilkes Booth#Booth escaped theory and the ones below it that deal with this topic, and offer your opinion? I know that this is not the sort of thing you normally do (nor is it for the other editor I selected), but you do appear to maintain an interest in WP:FRINGE, and coming from the outside, you might really be able to help us. Thank you. Unschool (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Unschool (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incest Taboo

Well, the article needed a wake-up call. I am still looking for a couple of citations, and am trying to get some other people won project:anthropology to go over it, but I am glad you think it is back on track, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE

Martinphi, you have been cautioned before about interactions with ScienceApologist. I see that at the WP:FRINGE guideline, you reverted him.[3] However, you are not engaging at the guideline's talkpage (though to be fair, neither is he). However, this may be considered a violation of your ArbCom restrictions, so if you continue with this course of action, your account access may be blocked. Please do better to engage in discussion, rather than just reverting someone with whom you have a long history of conflict. Thanks, --El on ka 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this: before, such things were said, and while I stopped reverting him, he did not stop reverting me. Indeed, I was still avoiding reverting him long after he no longer had any qualms about reverting me with nasty edit summaries. Meanwhile, as per recently at psychic, he would attack me on talk pages. After several weeks or months (?) of this, I told his tutor that I could no longer refrain from reverting him directly: it is just too much strain to do that when he is under no such real restriction. I'll look and see if you've given him the same warning. If he is under the same rules as I am, and you really mean it unlike Vassyana (who just gave up), then fine. But I'm not going to be held to a different standard than SA. I'm willing to be held to the same standard, though, even though my general behavior on Wikipedia means that I should have much more leeway to revert or make mistakes than he does (that doesn't mean the same restrictions: restrictions should be based on actual behavior).

Further, I reverted him only after two other editors had. One revert. So it's not as if I was doing anything out of the ordinary. That's just WP:BRD.

But, there is no ArbCom restriction on me concerning ScienceApologist. My ArbCom restriction was to not be disruptive, and reverting in the way I did could not be considered so. I am then to be page banned, not blocked.

You want us to disengage: that's not possible, as we edit the same articles. What you should want is that we behave in equally civil and non-disruptive ways. And you should apply any restrictions based on actual user behavior. If he can manage that, all will be well. But "disengage" means he and I can't edit the same articles.

My behavior is so much better than his that I should not be treated in the same manner as he is: that people think restrictions need to be the same for both of us is merely a matter of wiki politics, part of the double standard that SandyGeorgia talks about (see quotes above). It is not in any way based on user behavior. It never was. It's just that the fact is so much clearer now than it was a year ago.

So, in a nutshell: if you really mean it, well and good. That is, if you are going to do something about it rather than just talk. No admin who took on SA ever did, and you haven't yet. I got the short end of the stick because I abided by any restriction or request, and SA did not.

Question: if I'd said something on the talk page like "I reverted to the longstanding version which several editors, including myself, seem to consider better. Please discuss the edits and form consensus before reverting again" would that have helped? I can do that. However, I should not be required to do a detailed analysis of his edits. It is for him to convince and form a consensus for change, not for me to convince him and form a consensus for no change. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi, this was not acceptable, to try and downgrade the WP:FRINGE guideline to an essay in the middle of an edit war.[4] You have already been cautioned about disruption, and I am sorry that you did not take the caution to heart. To make it clear though: Per the discretionary sanctions authorized at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, I am instituting a page ban. Please do not edit the WP:FRINGE guideline for the next 30 days. You are welcome to participate at the talkpage, but please do not make direct edits to the guideline. Thanks, --El on ka 01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept this and will appeal. I didn't do anything wrong that I know of. Please reconsider. If there was anything disruptive in what I did, it was extremely minor, and my edit was defensible. I downgraded in the middle of an edit war in which I did not participate, as a justifiable reaction to the fact of the edit war. That's not disruptive. It's a way of saying "you're ruining things, stop it; when you stop edit warring, it can go back to being a guideline." Not disruptive, not even POINTy. Just a logical development from what was happening. Any guidline in that state should not be a guideline. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I repeat that my original revert, for which you started this thread, was by no means disruptive. I will appeal both of these, saying that you have been heavy handed. There is simply no justification for these actions. I am fully engaged in the talk page, and working toward consensus. My edits to the page have not been disruptive in either case in question. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is that the ban is punitive. There is no justification for saying that I was disruptive to the continued editing of the page, nor any justification for thinking I would be in the future. The two edits in question, even if they were wrong in themselves, do not constitute real disruption to the guideline article. In the absence of any meaningful case that I would disrupt in the future, banning me from editing it is punishment, not prevention.

I further object to the implication that I was not working toward consensus at the talk page, which is clearly not true had my edits on the talk page been reviewed. [5]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Hell

A colleague of mine will hep you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I didn't see that in searching for weather in Hell (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Moody

I don't think you examined the source of the mental hospital stuff and Raymond Moody. It came from an interview with Moody, himself. The material is most likely fact. He said it. I am going to put it back. I don't think you took the time to read the source material. You just jumped the gun. I'm not criticizing the guy. I am only supplying his own data. Are you in a hurry or something? Kazuba (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Why don't you contact me first before you jump to conclusions. (You seem to do this often. That is the reason you buy a lot of this PSI stuff which is well...shaky, to say the least) Take your time. Have you ever read "Life to Life" and examined Moody's sources? I did a long time ago. WOW! Kazuba (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "Life After Life," I suppose. Anyway, this is just the way WP goes... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct it is "Life After Life" my error. Slip of the lip. Like I said it was long ago. 30 years? It was recently recommended to me by my grievance counciliar. Some things never change. For NDEs The interest should be in the LEGALLY dead not the clinically dead. It is impossible for me to say what state of mind my wife was in before she died. But she did misidentify people. (I think) a day to a couple days before. A hospice nurse told me she could probably hear. Kazuba (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be taking Moody seriously, but I'm not sure in what way. I'll look more at the source when I have time. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same old same old

Moody ventured outside his field of expertise and was caught by the irrational and the occult. This is not a place for innocent lamb amateurs who know nothing about the various tricks the mind can play. They even prefer to avoid a critical study of the past of this strange magick realm. It gets em' all the time. They are so naive it is difficult to fathom. Who knows more about magic and deception than magicians? Men of science? No way. It ain't gonna happen. Ever. These are not people who make their living by deceiving others. Deception can be ingenious. Say hallucination, say delusion, say creative imagination, say careless, say mentally ill. These common human errors are real. You just don't get it, do you? kazuba 05:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And you just haven't read the book, have you? You think hospital patients were magicians who, for some reason, were just making up stories without using any magic tricks??? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the story

They did NOT make up stories. They were just on unfamilar ground. They mistook somaform? dissociation for a reality. Their experience with the unreal was at a minimum. I don't think the people of the past made up stories about witchcraft, magic and the supernatural. When you read their words they had experiences they just did not understand properly. Same with NDEs and OBEs. [6] If you believe in voodoo there is a good chance it will work on you. Especially if someone is driving you crazy by beating on a drum all night and you are in an uncomfortable place being eaten alive by mosquitoes. (The middle of the swamp?) Here in Detroit Voodoo priests supposedly sprinkled Lycopodium around the outside sills of windows. The victim inside the building dies of lung conjestion. At least that is what I heard from a herbalist when I tried to buy some. Ever read Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad and what it is based on? Conrad watched Europeans go crazy in the jungle. (The movie is Apocalyse Now. Take a look at the books Brando is reading.) As for Moody I originally had two links. Perhaps that made it confusing. I dropped the first. One of my favorite explorers into the strange places of the mind is Ronald K. Siegel [7] Your mind can really fool you. When I wanted to know about folie a deux and shared visual hallucinations he was the one I contacted. He is an expert. The human mind is very fragile. Just look at the news and human history. Moody like Elizabeth Kubler-Ross went over the edge. I think it was due to being around death, suffering and hopelessness. These are tough things to handle and not be affected. My wife's deep religious faith calmed her as she heroically faced an inevitable death. I found the goodbye letter she wrote me saying I will always be in her prayers. Super chick. Who could ask for more? [8] Kazuba (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Sending reply by email. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psionics links & whatnot.

Hello there. I've been reviewing the history of Psionics and I noticed that you have several times either added or removed links from the links section. I was wondering what your specific reasoning was for removing these links. I have reviewed all of them before adding them back and they seem to be perfectly valid references for parapsychology psionics. Thank you very much and I look forward to hearing back from you. Please respond on my Wikt talk page as is linked in my signature, thank you.--Neskaya _talk 17:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neskaya (talk • contribs) [reply]

What the?

Well, I'll be damned. The reference I cited on Raymond Moody is different then when I looked at it before. It has been edited. How about that... Must have screwed up, found passage else where.Kazuba (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(: ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 00:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...

I honestly can't remember what I was talking about when I said the things you mention on your userpage. But then, I say a lot of stuff, most of which I can't remember. Anyhow, I wish you the best. Though I've often disagreed with your approach here, life is bigger than that. You seem like an interesting and thoughtful person; we'd probably get along much better In Real Life than on Wikipedia, but that's how it goes. Take care, and perhaps I'll see you around. MastCell ^Talk 05:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, best to you also (: In real life I'd probably get along with almost everyone here. SA included. As to what you were talking about, I didn't know at the time. It seemed to refer either to my approach or SA's- so I judge it now with 20/20 hindsight. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 19:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, same here. We have to keep reminding ourselves that Wikipedia isn't real life. FWIW I have close family members who would make you look like James Randi, and while we occasionally have to bite our tongues we still have fun and get along. To the extent that I have sometimes made things too personal, I apologize. Maybe we can discuss it over a beer or three sometime... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I actually have close family members who think I'm James Randi. LOL. No apology necessary, so long as if we meet again in the great beyond I can call you toot sweet when you need it :D

BTW, retirement is from policy and article and article talk space- I still intend to present a bit of evidence and also ask the ArbCom to make things clearer at SA's ArbCom. They said something the last time they may or may not have meant to say. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 03:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geniuses?

"..... that there were people around who were having a hard time now, but would be eventually be recognized as geniuses." This high profile group will NOT include: Radin, Sheldrake, and Gary E. Schwartz. These STARS refuse to perform science. They seldomly look for flaws in their own data. If other scientists cannot repeat their experiments and get the same data as these STARS it is always the fault of the other scientists. Not them! Kazuba (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[9]Dean Radin Lecture Entangled Minds at Theosophy Hall, NYC Part 1 of 2 [10] Dean Radin Lecture Entangled Minds at Theosophy Hall, NYC Part 2 of 2 Kazuba (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kazuba, I'll check it out (: ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 03:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dude (: ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 20:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuba

Are we ignoring previous, present and later statements and exaggerations by the experimenter and others in the field that maybe helpful in an assessment of the experimenter's work? As an example, in a 1982 interview Marcello Truzzi stated that controlled ESP Ganzfeld experiments have "gotten the right results" maybe 60 percent of the time. (ref Marcello Truzzi, Detroit Free Press Science Page, 26 Oct. 1982) No one else concluded anything as high as 60 percent hits. Dean Radin says in his Entangled Minds lecture there were 4 targets. To guess the correct target by chance is 25 percent. (This would suggest the indentity of the 4 targets is not unknown to the receiver.) The hits were 10 percent above chance.[11]This would tend to make one have some reservations of Truzzi's knowledge and leanings in parapsychology. Dean Radin also seems to think Eastern yogis could read minds, see accurately into the past, present and future, and even levitate. In the same lecture Radin asks,"What do they know that we don't know?"[12]Dean Radin Lecture Entangled Minds at Theosophy Hall, NYC Part 1 of 2 One more thing, I have noticed when it comes to historical research Radin just doesn't do it. Thomas Edison did NOT work for years on a machine that would talk to the dead. This one really bugged me. [13] 31 Kazuba- Happy New Year

Just a question, Kazuba, but why are you so sure Edison didn't work on such a machine? It is a natural human inclination he'd have had good reason to hide. Looks more like he didn't want to be known for a failed experiment along those lines, to me. You have to be skeptical in every direction, not just one. Similarly, the site you give a link to has every reason not to look too deeply into the matter, and to use the word "admit" instead of the word "claimed" when talking about his denial years later. Skepticism in all things, even skepticism. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 22:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Edison did not go to any trouble at all to hide his interest in such subjects.DGG (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sure not, just saying that skepticism goes both ways. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 06:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are too much. Henry Ford's Greenfield village Thomas Edison's lab is not too far away. I asked them about it years ago. [By now you know, I HAD to be interested in something as weird as this.] They had never heard of such a thing. I also investigated this long before the INTERNET came along. [14] Mr. Radin likes to twist historical things his way. Ask yourself this question if historians and museums are in doubt, why isn't Radin in doubt? Edison worked on it for years? Where is the proof? Marcello Truzzi supposedly said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Madame Curie was blown away by Eusapia Palladino. What a con job! Curie was out of her league when it came to spirit mediums. (So is Gary Schwartz) Isaac Newton's Alchemy would now be defined as the occult. [The Theosophical society had to eat that one one up. That is just what they want to hear. Theosophy is occultism. The Secret friggin Doctrine!!]"There is a story" that once Thomas Edison was visited by the charlatan Bert Reese and Edison was hoodwinked. Reese was a real sharpie. (Bert Reese stuff follows) [15] Hearing of this and knowing how the world looked up to Edsion, Houdini's friend and psychical researcher, and likely the best mentalist the world has ever seen, Joseph Dunninger, visited Edison and duplicated Reese's performance. He assured Edison what he saw were Reese's tricks. Reese's, quite famous, billet switch and others are still used today in ...things, er ah you don't need to know about. Did you see Radin's Ganzfeld graph? It is difficult to see the PSI results are ONLY 10 percent over chance. The graph is (I think) quite deceiving. You have to REALLY be listening to Radin's spiel. Did you notice how Radin made it look like the remote viewing Stargate thing ended under the Bush administration. It didn't. It closed during the Clinton administration. To Radin a 20 million dollar loss is only a drop in the bucket. He told me so himself. Here is a favorite paradox of mine: We know Satan HAS to be the greatest deceiver because we cannot prove it. Yogis levitating... give me a break! People believe what they desire.[without investigating and maybe even after] You are so easy...No insult meant. You just are. When I was at Greenfield Village my wife spotted a letter written by the Wright brothers asking the Smithsonian Institute where would be the the best place to test their plane. The Smithsonian replied Kitty Hawk. I have corresponded many times with the Smithsonian about mysteries that interested me. My wife pointed out the letter and said to me, "You are in good company." What a woman! I miss her so much it is nearly unbearable. I told Tom Butler to ask my honey where we met and what is the name of her father's dog? I told Tom that MIGHT impress me. Kazuba (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuba, sweetheart, as a non-believer I simply say that both sides of the psychic/paranormal debate twist things badly. If I stop listening to Radin because someone catches him stretching the truth, I also stop listening to Hyman (the nearest runner-up in smarts, I guess), who was caught out very badly. You cannot solve the parapsychology debate for yourself by listening to the scientists. Now where is the extraordinary proof for all that science out there that is "mainstream" just because it isn't about ghosts? All the mainstream science that is actually just as hard to believe as those things which are metaphysically threatening to someone's psychology? Most of parapsychology rejection is purely because it doesn't pass the snicker test. Along with everything else in modern science, that is. If you are going to believe anything a scientist tells you, whether that scientist is mainstream or fringe, you are an idiot, just as you would be if you believed a mystic. But at least the mystic, sometimes, has experimented with his own mind and found something that worked to make him happier, but the scientist only makes you a gadget. That helps too. So leave belief completely out of the picture, and just do what works. BTW, have you ever read anything by that Susan Blackmore, I can't stand her because as little as I know about Zen even I could see she was twisting things, but the skeptics fall all over her uncritically, purely because of her POV. And 20 million in a 12 trillion economy is not even a drop in the bucket, you have to keep things in perspective. That is one of the worst things about people, for instance I know people who read the news and say "everything is getting worse worse worse." No. News coverage is making more out of less. When you think of a million, you have to put it next to the whole economy. When you hear of a million deaths in X country, you have to ask how many people were in the fight, maybe it was only a 1% loss rate. When you hear that species are going extinct you have to ask whether their territory covered more than a acre. When you hear that we're running out of oil, you have to ask if we really need oil, or do we rather need energy? It's about proportion, and you can't believe anything, whether from mainstream or fringe science. You're the easy one, Kazuba.... or at least I would say that if you admitted you're a skeptic. Since you don't, I see you as a fellow spirit. See? I can rant just as well as you can!!! I'm sorry about your wife, she must have been great. Kazuba: if you were "impressed" where would that get you? It would perhaps -perhaps- make your grief easier to bear, but it would not in any way make you feel more sure. For an intellectual it would raise far more metaphysical questions than it answered, and for the non-presupposed mind it would probably not lead to a lot of really comforting thoughts about the universe. Yet you never know: we might have comfort to spare, but if we do there is so much more to understand that we could not understand it and also be human. But we need another 2 or three hundred years of linear progression in technology and science, and then these questions should be much clearer. That "linear" progression might happen a lot faster though, you never know. But you aren't going to gain comfort from science and data in your lifetime. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 06:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot debate worth a damn. I can't frigging talk. I am NOT a skeptic. I have not said parapsychology is a pseudo-science. Neither has Hyman or Randi. Martin well.. Martin is saying being careless can take your mind into some very strange and dangerous places. He is definitely correct. We are all saying show me. I would not be surprised if there is some very very minor amount of telepathy that is just about worthless. But there are kooks. They really do exist. And kooks hang out together. Some kooks think they have special magical powers. And kooks like well.. you know who are not going to advance parapsychology as a science. It is almost a scientist? that amuses me. Whether they are intellectuals or not doesn't seem to matter much. I am not an intellectual nor do I pretend to be one. I am a grunt puzzler who studies the past and deception. Magick is magick. Levitating yogis, bent spoons, psychic dogs, intentionally enhanced chocolate bars, talking to the dead! I do not think 300 years from now the dead will say howdy. I do not think dogs or porpoises will lose their sense of smell or hearing and become psychic. There are blind people who can identify persons approaching and they will tell you it ain't cause they are psychic. In my lifetime I have watched one galaxy turn into millions of galaxies. I have seen the end of WW2, tail dragging dinosaurs vanish, the invention of the salk vaccine, cars get seat belts, the birth of rock and roll and a black man become president of the USA. These things had no negative affect on my comfort zone. (Let's forget about rapp and music being played so loud the ground shakes. And designing on a computer instead of by hand.) Atomic weapons, hate, worrying about my loved ones, growing older, losing my health, learning computers, playing the wrong notes, and forgetting things that has affected my comfort zone.. not advances in science. Garbage is garbage and it doesn't go anywhere. All I can say is watch and see. Magicians, psychologists, and psychiatrists have been watching minds deteriorate for at least a 100 years. I believe very little. I am too curious. Charles Manson can sometimes make sense. You can not take belief out of the human picture. How do you know it works? Because someone told you. Don't just show it to your buddies. Randi says show me. Enhance some chocolate bars for me. (When you are talking to the dead you do not ask specific questions. For some strange reason you become stupid after you are dead.) Let's have a great 2009. How the hell is that gonna happen? Kazuba (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC) This next line is very, very cool. So don't take it serious. It really shakes up the OTHER person. It goes.. "Now you can have the last word and be happy." I love it! I have really pissed off other people with that one. And you know something I didn't mean to piss them off. I finally got to sleep, Dude. Have a great day.Kazuba (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

retired

man, next time you retire just put up a "will be back on a few minutes" sign :) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, thanks. Like I said above, my retirement is for WP in general, but I'll edit limited to the current ArbCom (which happened after my retirement), and directly related pages. Sorry for the confusion. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... speaking of which, please remove the statement that the evidence is Durga's Trident's. — Coren ^(talk) 01:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your concern, and specifically claimed the evidence as my own. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 01:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your mail. — Coren ^(talk) 01:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

I did originally submit the Durga's Trident evidence, but that was before I retired. Since I'm no longer afraid of on-wiki retribution or being banned by the ArbCom, and since I eliminated as much personal info from my user pages as I reasonably can, I feel okay about acknowledging that now. Not that anyone doubted it. If there is any offline retribution, it will most probably be brief and not last long beyond SA's ArbCom, since a retired user will no doubt be of little interest. The only way I would remain at Wikipedia is if the Arbitration Committee takes a stand against debunking as well as promotionalism, and also does something to limit how much hatred is in the atmosphere of the fringe articles. I will only work in a generally collegial atmosphere. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 07:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Statements

The main case page is used for statements submitted before the case opens, rather than evidence-based submissions after it. Please feel free to enter that information into evidence, but please don't edit the main case page. Daniel (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

Template:Gblock-i

Enough is enough.--Tznkai (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Martinphi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't have a personal thing against SA, only a problem with the way he acts on Wikipedia, and we've been in contact because he edits the articles I do. Nor have I done anything whatsoever to further any on-wiki (or off-wiki) conflict between us. Tznkai is obviously thinking of my evidence at a recent ArbCom where SA has been sanctioned. But presentation of evidence at an ArbCom is no reason for blocking. I have done nothing else, besides participation in that ArbCom, which would promote any conflict between us. Further, my participation in that ArbCom is not over, and this block will interfere with it. I am a party in that ArbCom. Martinphi

Decline reason:

Saying "no reason given for block" does not make it so; the block reason is clearly provided above. I have reviewed your recent contributions independently, agree with the block, and also find your request for redress to be inadequate. — east718 | talk | 19:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm bringing this request up at the ANI thread. Not knowing any of the backstory on this, I don't feel as though I can judge this request myself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it has something to do with making it clear that a longstanding, but blanked, page is available in the history. According to policy, there is nothing wrong with this (everyone's personal information is so available, such as Shoemaker's), and ScienceApologist has many other links to his real name. I feel it is a matter of my personal freedom that I should be able to share these interviews, since it is part of my own participation. I feel that blanking the page itself was sufficient protection for SA unless the page was to be deleted, because blanking prevents search engines from accessing the information. I wished merely to be able to share these interviews, and see no reason why I should not have made it clear that the interview was available in the history.

I'm being blocked in the very middle of an unclosed Arbitration in which I am a party. Does someone think that blocking me will help stop ScienceApologist's problems? ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 19:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, I think it would be preferable if you provided assurances that you won't out anybody on-wiki again. To be perfectly honest, I'm slightly surprised that you're talking about having a "personal freedom" to out people. If you provided these assurances, then I guess an unblock could be possible, although you would probably be restricted to the ArbCom case. PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See sections below... ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the email

Well, I just thought this might have some outing info in it, I didn't click the links, so taking it out

Got this by email:

I do not know the entire background for your block, but note that SA's RIL identity is no secret, as it has been already reported on the Plasma Cosmology forum at , as well as here:

So all that talk about outing may be a red-herring...

Statement on outing

I don't think that noting on a blanked page that the full page exists in the history is outing. However, I did not have any intention of outing anyone.

General statement

People have been asking me to apologize for myself, but I am not going to. Here is some feedback I got:

The "pseudo-outing" was *not* the block reason and focusing on that incident gives the impression that you are mispresenting the block circumstances. Under an assumption of good faith, it still gives weight to claim that you (unintentionally) misrepresent situations and sources. Lacking that assumption, it not only casts the preceding claim as an intentional act, but also has the appearance of gaming the system. The substantive block reason is that your contribution history allegedly reflects a battleground history focused on ScienceApologist.

I thought it was the main block reason.

As has been made quite apparent, the situation is one of battle. There is no other description which properly sums it up. You can't admit that NPOV editors have been driven away (quite aside from me) and not think it's battle. As I said, the debunkers lose if they are no longer allowed their tactics of disruption; thus, if you make the situation collegial, they lose and Wikipedia, wins. But it's a situation in which someone loses. The losers may win also, but in a way which is good for Wikipedia instead of what they think is good.

If you want to be unblocked, you're going to need to convince people that you are not mainly on en.wiki to battle with ScienceApologist and that you can disengage from the situation with ScienceApologist. You will also need to convince people that you will accede to community norms, rather than relying on an interpretation of policy providing negative evidence of permissibility.

I have have nearly always disengaged with SA to the extent possible and still edit: if I disengaged any more, I'd just stop editing articles I enjoy. And, in fact, that is what I have for a long time intended to do. I've retired except for the ArbCom.

But if you allow this kind of thing, you simply weaken Wikipedia: there is already a very strong undercurrent which says that people are not treated equitably and fairly on WP. This only strengthens it.

Yes, I know apologizing all over the place for myself would probably get me unblocked. But over the years I did the best I knew how in the situation which the admins and ArbCom allowed to develop. I'm not going to apologize for doing my best, especially when the only way I could have done better would have been to stop editing. Even if I did something wrong, you simply shouldn't expect so much of editors, it isn't doable or fair, and makes Wikipedia the encyclopedia where one in a million can edit (if that). I'm not superhuman, but I have been asked to be.

I don't need to convince people of anything. They are simply wrong if they think I'm here to battle SA. I used to be here to add content, now for a while I've been there merely to make the situation clear, as I have done in the ArbCom. I have nothing against SA; I defend him by email, when others say far worse things about him than I do; I disagree with him mainly on style rather than content; I think we'd get along well, and have a lot in common if we met in real life. So, I focus on the general situation, not SA, as is very apparent from the way I've acted in the ArbCom.

The situation on Wikipedia has become clear, and quite a lot of my policy work has been integrated into the current ArbCom. The ArbCom has taken my policy interpretations and made them Wikipedia.

The problem of debunking and the situation of battle unfortunately persists at this time. Without me and others who actually engaged the debunkers, Wikipedia would never have faced the situation to the (small) extent it has. Accusations of battle need to be tempered with an assertion that other forms of NPOV-central engagement were possible, and in this case they were not. You do not ask people in real life to "not battle" when they have a knife to their throat. Neither should you ask a Wikipedia editor to "not battle" when the situation is purely one of "battle or don't edit at all." That is what Wikipedia asked of me, and of many, many others. The admins, and Wikipedia in general, failed to create a collegial editing environment.

They know that now, they know how policy has been misinterpreted, and there is a new chance going forward, if a very slim one.

I do ask to be unblocked, but if not, the fact that I have a legacy on Wikipedia is enough. I will remain in spirit. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]