Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:40, 4 May 2008

User talk:Martinphi/Template

You are not retired

Stop pretending. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Superrelativity

I fixed the formatting of this AfD for you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 03:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 03:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

non-negotiable

Martin, your edit. inadvertently I believe, reintroduced core and removed non-negotiable. No harm done as I see you noted the change and reverted it, but you probably do owe SA an apology for saying he changed it. I noted your discussion on Redflag but I need to think on it. I agree there may be some contradictions there but I need to study them. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You saw it never mind. Ward20 (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

closing admin possibilities

Would a link be provided in the case of superrelativity to Mr. Fiorentino's user page? By the way how do you like the way Mr. F. brings different fields together like Magnetism, Ionisation of water, and other previously thought unscientific 'cures' and solutions.

Thank you for your help on the subject--BennyCreemers (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: this politely snarky comment

Actually, this edit is precisely what it says it is: a reversion of this edit. I don't see why you think the description was at all misleading.Kww (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a mistake. I am having some trouble because of bigtime lack of sleep. At any rate, my mistake came about because he put in that summary while reverting two editors at once. I agreed with his revert of one, then saw he'd also edit warred his section back in. My error was mistaking the username, so I thought he reverted the last editor rather than two at once (and thus the section shouldn't have appeared there). Anyway, it was a mistake I'd refactor if it were not a summary. As I recently did on one edit. One gets frusterated with disruption on this scale, and makes mistakes. I mean, he does say some awesome stuff when reverting. I was hasty. see edit summaries here ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#ScienceApologist.2FJzG. John254 04:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I coulding vote support at this time. I wish adminship could be taken away easier- then there would be less reasons to keep people away from the tools and the non-technically based power that comes with them. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How about an IRC interview?

Have you ever considered using IRC? It requires very low bandwidth connections. Skype text chat also is very low bandwidth.--Filll (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe on both of these. I keep getting distracted and having to do stuff. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We could have a regular audio chat going and then an IRC chat or a Skype chat simultaneous. You might be able to listen to the audio chat through your speakers (although I have my doubts), but certainly could follow the IRC chat or Skype chat. I would love to have you as part of this.--Filll (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (: I can follow the chat, but never get streaming audio. I think the best thing, if you really want to do this, is to do chat or email, and then someone can read it if you want audio. Taking part in a multiple-way conversation isn't much good. Unless everyone is using email. Not chat as it goes too fast for me to think of decent responses in time for more than one person. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried IRC before? I like the mIRC client but there are several others that people use. Also, you can take part in chat using Skype quite easily if you just download it an install it.--Filll (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

beginning of bptdude comment

I did not know how to email you personally, so I say hello here. Please send me your email, if you do not mind, so I may speak more privately. Good luck on your arbitration.

The aggresive user in question seems to have god-like Wiki powers, but is not abiding by standards of journalism. I do not care that he believes in things or not, his bulk deleting of links to reference information and other unprofessional behavior hurts the reputation and integrity of Wiki.

I do not care if the article was about little green men from pluto, the belief of some people in it, that resulted in tax money of large sums spent over many years would make it a topic of public interest and any reason the proponents have for such activity should not be censored because some Wiki admin is having emotional difficulty with it.

Good luck.

Bptdude Bptdude (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reiki

Ooops, good call. I should have read that reference instead of just formatting it. That page is clearly not a reliable source.

Also, in the interests of community building, I note that your take on the last couple of AfDs in which we have both taken an interest has coincided with mine. I definitely much prefer scholarly disagreement to edit-warring. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 03:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I join with both of you in opposing the use of some professor's personal opinion page as a source; particularly since it in no way elaborates on scientific objections to the concept of Reiki. I've already reached my 3-R limit today on this issue, would one of you mind fixing it again? User:QuackGuru has taken up the cause for User:ScienceApologist. Jarandhel (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Truzzi

From his articles in local newspapers, books, articles, our conversations, and our correspondence Truzzi was a poor investigator of the paranormal. He was just too easy and willing to believe things that didn't jive with others, whether they accepted the paranormal or if they didn't. He made up things to satisfy his own needs. Whatever. He certainly was remarkable! Information of this type is not welcomed on the Misplaced Pages. People like to hear things that make them feel good about their heroes. Magicians and mentalists that believed in the paranormal loved him.Kazuba (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My stuff is never a formal paper. I am a street person, remember. My puzzles are only a hobby. I threw away a lot of stuff. Don't think I have anything. But I certainly remember I was not impressed. The last thing I heard from Martin Gardner was that Truzzi became a Geller supporter because Geller made millions claiming he was NOT a magician. If you are wise you go with the money. I have never been wise. Kazuba (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To survive as a self-educated grunt you either become streetwise or lucky. (Well then too I have had, and still do have, some exceptional teachers.) That's just the way it is. Plus you must know by now I am definitely a misfit. The happiness and health of my wife and family have always been more important to me than anything else. More than anything else I wanted happiness to dwell under my roof. Read Swan Song by Robert R. McCammon. Check out some of the more recent additions to my user page at the bottom. Shazam! Kazuba (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re medcab

To be honest, I've experienced a lot of difficulty over 1-word disputes like this... I'm just kinda hanging around to make sure people don't start hurting each other with pointy sticks :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe; I agree mediation has failed (I couldn't think of much to do). Although there was a lull there... the dispute has moved to a tag, no? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Medcom may actually be a good choice. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

H arbitration

Wouldn't this be a good time to discuss the disconnect between the NPOV in minority cases and they way that policy is generally used by the SPOV advocates? Anthon01 (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Makes me feel good. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— is smileing at you!

Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

It was very true.

Arbitration enforcement warning

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Martinphi_restricted, you are subject to being banned from any page if you make disruptive edits. Your recent edits to Parapsychology are bordering on disruptive. If you continue to edit disruptively there, you are likely to be banned from that page for a period of time. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Hello,

Re your warning on my talk page, I'm just wondering if you know of several facts: one, that ScienceApologist is edit warring those changes in against the wishes of other editors. Two, that we discussed it on the talk page. Three, that his edit warring out of the word "phenomenon" is an extension of his edit war at WTA, which he does utterly against the consensus of other editors there. Four, that Parapsychology is a featured article, and edits -especially those which change the POV or which eliminate standard terminology (as with his edit)- should be discussed and agreed upon first.

I'm at a loss to see how removing such an edit of his is disruptive on my part. He is utterly outside wiki process, in which he should use the talk page if reverted, and abide by the communal decision process. Did you also warn him?

I don't know what process you went through to decide whether to warn me or not. If there is anything on the wiki, could you point me to it? I do see that you did not warn ScienceApologist for his disruption. I was only defending the status quo, and asking that edits be made by consensus. He was edit warring his changes in.

What I do know about you leads me to hope you are fair- I'm reading your posts to ScienceApologist's talk page here. So I hope fairness will prevail (: ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the background to your dispute and I had fully intended to suggest that ScienceApologist not edit war either, but I must have closed that tab without saving. His editing restriction doesn't apply to edit warring, but I've suggested that he should discuss rather than edit warring. Stifle (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, great. See, ScienceApologist is in a unique position, because he can do anything, and blocks just wont stick. Raul unblocked him over the objections of other admins and an ArbCom member, FT2. He sometimes refuses mediation even. So what am I supposed to do? Just abandon the featured article when he edit wars nonconsensus changes in? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that one. Stifle (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to get your perspective on this question, the answer to which will help resolve the issue you and ScienceApologist seem to be having right now. Antelan 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reiki

I just added this systematic review to the reiki article. This entailed an almost complete rewrite of the Scientific research section to reflect this professional systematic assessment of the literature and to substantiate or remove previously uncited statements. I also largely removed the description of sham reiki in favor of a link to blind experiment.

If you get a chance to look it over and concur, I would like to remove the {{Totally-disputed-section}} tag. Please share your thoughts at Talk:Reiki#Scientific research. Regards. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, this would be a lot simpler if you would just take the "other" side consistently :). Thank you for ditching the POV-tags, it is good to have a reasonable consensus. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits to WP:CIVIL

Hey, um, I was looking at WP:CIVIL, and, well, gien that you're in a very public dispute with Science Apologist, and given that he's under civility patrol, it might be best if you moved away from that policy page, as it gives a somewhat unseemly appearance. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, okay, I looked at the talk page one last time, and this:

Yes, he said it very well indeed. And thanks for archiving (: For many months I have watched people poison the atmosphere, and, for example, call certain "groups of people" who just happened to be present, stuff like "moronic" "woo-woos" "crazies" "nutcases" etc. It has NOT been dealt with. In fact in the case on one user it has not been dealt with even after ArbCom sanctions about civility

really makes it clear you do have SA in mind with these proposals. That REALLY isn't on. Please stop. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)