User talk:PhiChiPsiOmega

Welcome!

Hello, PhiChiPsiOmega! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!   — Jess· Thank you! Hopefully I will be more of a help than a hindrance or nuisance. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Δ♥ 20:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

PhiChiPsiOmega, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi PhiChiPsiOmega!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there! Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 04:12, Wednesday, May 15, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Pseudoscience sanctions

You should be officially aware of the sanctions available to administrators under WP:ARB/PS. Basically, if you misbehave (e.g. WP:POVPUSHING, WP:IDONTHEARTHAT) you are likely to be blocked from editing. You must recognise that the existence of conclusive evidence for parapsychology is very strongly disputed, and the mainstream position which we predominantly reflect is that is a pathological pseudoscience. You might now like this but that's the way it is. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's very strongly disputed. However, in these cases, one should represent the other side fairly, and acknowledge that they have been actively responding in peer-reviewed form. It's disputed science and perhaps fringe science, but it's not pseudoscience. For example, just because many people think psychoanalysis is pseudoscience doesn't mean it is. And suppose it was only considered pathological pseudoscience (despite the evidence to the contrary, IMO), just for the moment. At least show that the people who support the "pseudoscience" are doing enough good work to get their replies published in peer reviewed journals! At least quote their replies to the allegations, even if you don't come down on their side. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It depends on exactly how you define these terms, i.e. pseudoscience or pathological science. It's nearly always one or the other. Also, peer-review is useless unless it is critical peer review. There's no point is a psi advocate getting his stuff done by another psi advocate. Anyway, the point is being confrontational, ignoring advice, will probably not get you very far. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be confrontational. The peer-review happened in Psychological Bulletin. I don't think it gets more critical than that. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

One swallow does not make a summer. Just because a few anomalous results have been published hasn't altered the scientific consensus which is presently that psi doesn't exist. Acknowledgement of this fact is necessary. We have to represent this mainstream consensus whether you like it or not. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. Very statistically significant results are cause for concern, especially once one considers that the effect size is independent of methodological quality. I agree that you have to represent the mainstream consensus, even when I disagree with it. Please just show that parapsychologists have replied to the criticisms enough to have their replies peer-reviewed. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, actually. If they were significant they would have changed the consensus position. There's no point in arguing about what the consensus position should be on Wikipedia as we reflect what the consensus is. Failure to understand this is potentially a problem. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, no. The statistics reported are extremely significant, and said things have been generating lively discussion within the peer-reviewed literature, as even a skeptical blog post realizes: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4348. The Wiki article falls on the side of several skeptics, and doesn't represent the full spectrum of opinions, nor does it give the replies parapsychologists make to the skeptical critiques. I even presented evidence showing that opinions are divided and that the line of demarcation is difficult to draw with parapsychology, if it can be drawn at all. However, as I said before, even if it's the case that it's pseudoscience, you could at least give the parapsychologists' responses to said critiques. If you can cite people like Robert Todd Carroll who aren't peer-reviewed, you can cite Dean Radin and the replies made by parapsychologists in peer-reviewed areas. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The above paragraph paraphrased into helpful wiki capitals: WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I do hear you. I just think you're wrong. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, PhiChiPsiOmega...where if you aren't sufficiently skeptical, you're considered "fringe" and a quack. Happy editing! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Er... am I not applying the right amount of skepticism? I think I've been quite fair-minded. Could you point out where I went wrong? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi PCPO. You recently restored this comment at User talk:Goblin Face after Goblin Face had removed it. Per WP:BLANKING, GF is allowed to remove any other users' comment from his own talk page. You restoring the comment is inappropriate. Please go ahead and self-revert your comment on his talk page. Ishdarian 21:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, then. I won't. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Futility

PhiChiPsiOmega, you are doing a good job at upsetting the dominant/skeptical editors but my crystal ball tells me that the end will be simply the addition of your name to my list of recent martyrs. It would be good if there was a way to redirect your attention to more fruitful endeavors. If you are interested, please send me a message with the Contact tool on my website. Tom Butler (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If they want to confront me, they can. They're just embarrassing themselves and messing up Wikipedia, and the evidence is just going to pile up in support of the fact that they should stop. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but that is my point: in Wikipedia, they are not real people, and not being subject to social norms, are technically immune to embarrassment. They do become aggressive when cornered, though, and band together to eliminate opposition whenever possible ... with great success.

After looking over some of your edits, I would recommend that you give up on the usual social norms for what is right and what is wrong. One hard and fast rule in Wikipedia is that, if it is not explicitly described by mainstream science, then it is not real and any claims to the contrary must be pseudoscience. While that is scientism, it is the reality of Wikipedia. This means that peer-reviewed journals such as published by the Parapsychological Association and the Society for Scientific Exploration are considered fringe and are not allowed. Anything written by a parapsychologist must be ignored or at least is trumped by such skeptical luminaries as James Randi and Carl Sagan.

I am actually not being facisious. As they have tried to tell you many times, these rules are spelled out here, here and here. So I will ask again, are you interested in finding a different way? Tom Butler (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Accounts

Hey, PhiChiPsiOmega,
Just a note because I see you posting both as an IP (logged out) and as your username (logged in). If you are going to do this, you need to create a user page and acknowledge that both accounts are you. If you don't, there can be allegations that you're "socking" (using multiple accounts to mislead other editors) and you don't want to get kicked off Wikipedia for something like that which can be easily addressed. Either log in every time you edit or acknowledge the IP on your user page and I think you should be covered. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry. The 69.14.156.143 account is mine. It's not a sock. I'm just getting used to the Wiki system. This error will go away in the future. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)