![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For constructive and improving edits to Ian Stevenson. Keep it up! Verbal chat 08:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC) |
You've been accused of sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papa November. I don't think you need to worry about it Papa November ( talk) 17:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:HalliFeb1942QST.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 23:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Wdet.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:WDET-FM transmitter.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:WDET-FM transmitter.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 12:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that the section on Accessibility that you have removed twice on the Pecha Kucha page are opinions and how-to. The section describes the inherent accessibility issues that the presentation form provides and describes an alternative approach that help alleviate such issues. If you remove the section on the grounds that it is "How-to" information, you might as well remove the entire, or large sections, of the article as well as other articles, such as the Accessibility page itself. Accessibility is a real concern that affects large groups of people, not jsut a minority "opinion". Ndufva ( talk) 13:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that you want the information to be verifiable. This is hardly what you used as an argument in the first instance. I shall look for a third party verifiable source of this information. By the way, you should know that blindly deleting content like this (twice!) is not really good form. See for example Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes under deletions... Ndufva ( talk) 13:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
How could the material from this diff [1] be worded to as to meet your approval? It reads: In some cases, however, children claim to have previously been members of lower social classes. In one instance, a girl named Swaran Lata, who was born into an upper-class family in India, reported memories of being someone who cleaned toilets. She habitually cleaned up the excrement of other children, and refused to go to school when she was young, saying that "We are sweepers. Nobody studies in our family, and I never sent my children to school." [1] Thanks for the help, Mitsube ( talk) 22:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Scr300.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Dave1185 talk 06:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jim Tucker, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Tucker. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Artw ( talk) 22:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lucky. I seem to have inadvertently changed something in the Amateur Radio article beyond my intent. Another editor had changed all occurrences of "call sign" with "callsign". Since the most common way to write the term is using two words (see, for example the FCC, ARRL, and ITU web sites), I simply undid the change. But this apparently caused some references to change, as indicated by a subsequent edit to correct the problem. I would like to understand how it happened. Did I cause it? I simply undid a previous edit where two words were replaced by one word. How could that change some references? Thanks. RadiomanPA ( talk) 13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
As the prod was removed I took the article to AfD. Verbal chat 15:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- In regard to the notable artist liners used to try and establish some notability of the show, how does the following wikipedia policy apply? If at all..
Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
Couldn't this along with the program schedules be eneough to verify notablitiy in it's musical realm of Christian Metal? Please note, it is not the intension of this article to present The Full Armor of God Broadcast as something it isn't.. But exactly what it is? A significant Christian Metal broadcaster of it's counter culture ONLY.
By the way, if I came off disrespectful, I appologize. I really felt under the gun when everyone started coming at me from all sides on this. Forgive me.. Armorbearer777 ( talk) 09:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
[2] [3] This is the probable reason why Asdfg12345 took a sudden interest in parapsychology articles. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree deletion is inappropriate in this case. It is notable that ghost hunter types believe these purported temperature fluctuation are in some way related to ghosts. Perhaps stubbing the article would be the best approach. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&q=%27robert+bigelow%22+ranch&spell=1 Results 1 - 10 of about 1,400 for 'robert bigelow" ranch. (0.23 seconds
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&q=%22gilliland+ranch%22&spell=1 Results 1 - 6 of 6 for "gilliland ranch". (0.12 seconds)
I think 1,400 results from google news and a plethora of reliable sources amongst that mix would dictate a higher volume of attention to this specific wikipedia article. Please review the first link for countless new sources on the ranch. The wikipedia article itself for the ranch has a high volume of traffic per day, I assume this is due to the vast amount of media coverage of the ranch, yet this is paradoxically offset by the recent amputation of information on it's wikipedia article. I also included google news results for "gilliland ranch" a similiar "haunted ranch" (to use one editors terms), to demonstrate the dramatic contrast in media attention and public interest in Bigelow's Ranch. Hiii98 ( talk) 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted the citation about Venezuela & Russia on the article. I don't want to hit 3RR, but there seems to be a problem with the ref. The ADN link in that reference doesn't contain the large section in the ref about "El Diario Exterior is reporting...". Is that from the BoingBoing link on the ADN site? If so, we should be using that direct link (I can't access BoingBoing at work to check it). — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 20:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Just a comment: It would be cool if you identify yourself as a member of WikiProject Paranormal, since I see your name on the history pages of various paranormal articles. Thanks for the neutralizing revisions. The project really needs helpful people like you.--Ghostianity 08:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry, I did not create Aaron Goodwin (cameraman), but I did move it from Aaron Goodwin (paranormal investigator). It's actually User:Mims72. Contact them here. -- twinsday ( talk) 22:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Reincarnation research. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reincarnation research. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello LuckyLouie. I think you may have not seen a couple of sections on the talk page which are relevant to your recent edits, which I thought were for the most part fine. There is some agreement on the talk page that "Largely a religious topic is different than solely a religious topic" (as Nealparr put it) and I based my version of the sentence in the intro on what he suggested. I think it doesn't endorse or even hint at either positive or negative conclusions drawn from the investigations. Is this acceptable to you? Regards, Mitsube ( talk) 06:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't see your post until tonight. Yes, the students are trying to add to the article. They did work on it off the page, and then added it. Might be good to try to help them. They are doing their best, I'm sure. I'm encouraging them to be more specific, and cite their sources. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice work on Battle of Los Angeles and related articles. Cheers, ClovisPt ( talk) 19:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the sanity check, that was a bit pointless of me. I'll take it back, and stop feeding him. -- McGeddon ( talk) 19:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
World War II Radio Heroes: Letters of Compassion at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Lionelt (
talk)
07:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your last comment on the OOPArt Talk Page, I added thise paragraph to the article: In some rare cases, the validity of some of these claims is validated by mainstream science, i.e. it is proven that some artifact was created with a technology not previously thought to have existed in the ancient culture that built it (see "fully validated" example).
See William James discussion page. Kazuba ( talk) 21:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If you wish to know more about the history of the Omega Point (Tipler) article, see the SPI I've filed. I've been studying the actions of Jamiemichelle ever since I stumbled onto the article Existence of God, which was also similarly affected. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 01:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
@ 58.96.94.12:
See William James discussion page. Nice historical problem. Kazuba ( talk) 23:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
New message at Piper. Kazuba ( talk) 08:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you ever experienced Jamais vu? I have only once in my life. Driving a route I had followed very very often. Twice when I was sick with severe clinical depression I shared near to exact visual hallucinations Folie A Duex with my wife. I played dumb and quizzed her on what she saw. Yep, same thing. For this I suspect emotional contagion in a very unusual form. Kazuba ( talk) 22:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Presumably that was a regular editor logged out, I commented on the IP's talk page. Of course, I have no idea who it could be. Dougweller ( talk) 18:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Probably a good idea to keep this on your watch list. Dougweller ( talk) 20:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
A Mediation Cabal (Informal Mediation) case to which you have been named a party has come up for mediation by Ronk01 talk. Please navigate to the casepage, located here: [4], and leave an opening statement as instructed there. You will also need to sign your agreement to the mediation there. If all listed parties do not sign, the case will be referred to RFC and closed immediately. You will be updated on further progress of the mediation on your talk page. 14:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
...For your thoughtful yet largely unhelpful comments on my UserTalk page. Seeing as you and I disagree on the adequate application of policy as well as a disturbing trend emerging surrounding the stalking of my edits, I am arriving at the conclusion that your comments are not altruistically-driven or even remotely accurate. I politely request that you make every effort to avoid posting to my page in the future, except in those instances where notification is mandated. I will extend your the same courtesy, and I will view a breach of my request as harassment. This might alter at some future point, but I am fairly convinced that we have little in the way of positive commentary to offer one another at this time. Good editing. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 16:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Just out of interest, is the times considered a tabloid on here? I hadn't gotten that impression but I'm happy to be corrected. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 22:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I've commented on your comment here; feel free to reply. Ironholds ( talk) 12:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Just want to let you know, I really appreciate your help on the ufology articles and, really, all your work on FTN issues. jps ( talk) 08:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. i changed the size from 39 to 40 and now it seems to be working. hope you had a happy new year. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 01:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you please be more specific in your comments because you've nominated for deletion and commented on a lot of topics surrounded all of the articles i have posted. I spent the last 2 months slowly translating all of these materials from russian and comparing to anything i could find from scientific journals and other websites to post these articles which i believe are very important. i don't have any affiliation with that company. I have however met both scientists as I am a researcher myself and you and a small handful of people are undoing a lot of hard work I put into these articles with a lot less care than I put into them which I don't appreciate. For any reference I have provided the standard that is seemingly required will never be met regardless of updates or references I provide so I would like to ask for your help in keeping these articles afloat and what I should do to help. I'm finding a lot of bias from what people casually find in a google search and their own common knowledge and only to what is available in english than any other possible source real or questionable otherwise. Please and thank you.-- Newyork48 ( talk) 20:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't get your message on my talk page...I never received a new message warning for some reason :/ I've never edited at Radio, I don't believe, and don't know anything about the situation. The first thing I notice is using "HAM" instead of "ham" in his version of the section rewrite, which is patently ridiculous. In the edit you point out, he seems to be adding quite a UK flavour to the section, which isn't appropriate, though it doesn't seem to be carried over to the rewrite. To that end, I've left my review of the situation ( diff), and let it be known that I wrote it as a neutral party and as an honest comparison of the two versions. — Huntster ( t @ c) 03:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. That article is out of control. I think it is Mrs Kilde herself who distorts it anonymously. In any case I will refrain from any further editing because it would be silly to engage in edit wars with anonymous users. You may take a look anyway. Have a nice day!-- Dipa1965 ( talk) 18:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for responding! I was wondering whether I was wrong with her attitudes. Sometimes I am a bit touchy, I admit.-- Dipa1965 ( talk) 20:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The troll is still trolling but I will not bite the bait. I wonder why it is not permanently blocked, though.-- Dipa1965 ( talk) 11:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You made disappointed.for over a day i had discussed about Dr stevensons and his works with Strikerforce and Phearson and my sources made them satisfy and i do not have enough time to detail all of our discussion again for you.if just look at the referencess like archive.org or Further reading sections you will be satisfied too .If you want to get more information about this article you can go to archive.org then download Dr stevenson pamphlet about personality disorder (about 70 pages),read it and then if it was not verifiable and was worthless ,your idea about deletion is true.remember we all try to expand knowledge for domain public and mus not do something else against it.-- Navid1366 ( talk) 16:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Rense is not a reliable source, but much of the material on it is just reprints of material from appropriate sources. You seem to be deleting citations without regard to the underlying source. Please review your deletions and restore any where the original source can be cited instead. Will Beback talk 21:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 01:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Proposed merge of Category:Reportedly haunted locations into Category:Paranormal places. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_24#Category:Reportedly_haunted_locations. Simply south.... .. trying to improve for 5 years 16:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
How you got interested in the article of cow urine ? -Abhijeet Safai 06:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I nominated it for deletion from commons.Unless you can prove the ad's copyright wasn't renewed, it may still be under copyright and can't be loaded onto commons. ut it should be fine to reload directly onto EN:WP with a fair use justification. Psu256 ( talk) 18:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Means you now favor some sort of infobox? If you could clarify here [8] [9] Thanks Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Consensus [10] was for deletion. Please don't recreate the article under another name. Cheers. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
All of my additions are properly footnoted. The article as it existed was clearly biased, I simply made it closer to balanced. I have created this user to make communication easier. Apollion888 ( talk) 20:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Hodgson exposed numerous frauds but when he encountered Mrs. Piper, he found no evidence of it whatsoever. This is not fringe, it is the historical record.
I appreciate that what you are doing, by your definition, is "good." The more people like you I encounter, the more compassion I have. But facts are not fringe, and after my next update I will push the issue to mediation and see what happens. Apollion888 ( talk) 19:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at some of the edits I've made to the Jersey Devil page. I've tried to use more reliable, or at least more respected, sources to expand the article. I hope to expand on the origin of the legend also, but not until the sources I use get the all clear. Thanks. Angrybeerman ( talk) 13:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
For changing your opinion on a matter ... a rare event in WP, which is too often dominated by immovable, extreme viewpoints. Noleander ( talk) 00:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hi. I noticed that, back in the day, you added this as a reference to the Nordic aliens article. However, it's not clear to me if it actually discusses Nordic aliens anywhere. Do you remember anything about that reference? Thanks. Zagalejo ^^^ 02:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out why you erased my talk message here about Mothman. Please respond. Western Fortean ( talk) 22:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you actually going to discuss it there? Western Fortean ( talk) 23:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Please don't revert the lede material there without discussion (on the article's talk page), thanks. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 12:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Very nice clean-up, turning impenetrable prose into exemplary Wikipedia text. Thanks! MartinPoulter ( talk) 17:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-12/Bigfoot for a discussion over bias in Bigfoot and Cryptozoology.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Please replace my data. If you had looked you will see it is taken from a published work. So it is not priamary it is secondary. Richard Hodgson by A.T. Baird was published by Psychic Press Limited, London. 1949. They have changed the title and author's name it is now known as: The Life of Richard Hodgson by Alex Baird. Using a first edition I was unaware of that. [11] [12] How hard did you look for my published source before you deleted my data? Are you gonna tell me now that publisher is invalid because you don't like it? It is not a major or American publisher?.... or a no longer existing publisher? [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazuba ( talk • contribs)
Hi. When you recently edited Milton William Cooper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bethesda Hospital ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Please stop it. You are obviously pedantically misusing Wikipedia Guidelines to censor content on this article. I've seen your obsessions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_YouTube_a_RS_for_Milton_William_Cooper.3F and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Milton_William_Cooper - I'm not going to revert the removal of the Youtube links, but I am going to continue to be a force for the inclusion of the list of Radio broadcasts. These broadcasts exist. They are verifiable by simply listening to them, whether you listen to them on youtube or not. Frankly "list of titles tells reader nothing of real significance about their content" is a one of the most absurd excuses I've ever heard for someone censoring Wikipedia content in all my 4000+ edits here. Please tell us why you are so obsessed with handicapping the value of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia? The list of radio broadcasts on Mystery Babylon is a valuable part of cooper's life, so tell us what harm you think will happen if this list remains in Wikipedia? Also I am not a 'fan' of cooper. I have no views on whether Cooper is a force for good or bad. I just just want Wikpiedia to be an inclusive work regardless of my own views, your views or anyone else's views. Vexorg ( talk) 04:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
User Melodychick has deliberately gone on about 50 or so separate articles trying to link them to the ethereal being article just to make sure that the article does not get merged or deleted. I find this totally unacceptable, this user is not trying to help the article, now we have over 50 articles with ethereal being on it. GreenUniverse ( talk) 00:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
If you have the time, it would be interesting to get your opinion on this article: Morya (Theosophy), I consider it one of the worst articles on wikipedia, I believe articles should be improved but this article is not worth working on. It is filled with original research from top to bottom, no third party reliable references at all, nothing. Last month or so I submitted it to be deleted, but at the last minute a Theosophist entered the debate and it was two votes to one, so I lost out. This user agreed he would try and help the article but as predicted he has since not logged in. The article is mostly copy and paste from two Theosophist books, absolute wild claims and crank talk, it is hard to even understand what the article is saying. Most of the articles content is already found on the Ascended Master article, so I do not see why we need the article at all, as it is mostly original research and fringe pushing from the Theosophist crowd and copied material. GreenUniverse ( talk) 23:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment on antennas. I am FAR away from being an active ham these days, but when that stuff gets in your blood as a kid, it stays in there forever, I think. Interesting to see the articles you started. My first receiver back in 1953 or so was homebrew, then I upgraded to my beloved SX-28. My first transmitter as WN3BOA in 1955 was a Johnson Viking Adventurer. Somewhere along the way I also had a Hammarlund HQ-129 and/or HQ-140 (as I remember the model numbers). Lou Sander ( talk) 13:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello LuckyLouie. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Dear LuckyLouie,
Thanks for your opinion in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#kriyayogashyamacharan.org_-_reliable_source
My only endeavor is to provide the right info to Wiki and its readers. At times, might be, my expressions have been misguiding. But, to be honest, I tried my best to convey the proper info. With supporting evidences from the most eminent and independent websites and newspapers.
I need your help to sort this out.
Advance thanks and warm regards,
Akash 2011 ( talk) 18:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I am one of the contributors to 73 magazine. My name is Henryk Kotowski, call sign SM0JHF. You can search the index of the magazine. Several cover pictures and stories submitted by me and accepted by the publisher were used in the magazine. However most of them have not been paid for as agreed in advance. Buckamaster scanned the magazines and offered the digital files for sale. HamCall, which is the new name of the same company, admits that the digital files will not be available for sale until 70 years after the death of the authors. Please stop removing my editons from Wikipedia. Read the information on HamCall.net: 73 Magazine Archives Online 73 Magazine was Buckmaster's first effort into offering the archives of a magazine online. Unfortunately, due to various royalty and copyright issues that existed between contributing authors and 73 Magazine, it doesn't look likely that we will ever be able to actually show the full-size images.
If there are any images of my articles posted on the web, it is illegal. Kotoviski ( talk) 16:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I responded to your last comments. It actually does concern what is in the article, and I have elaborated there. The link is here, I can't remember how to make it pretty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#No_Article_Yet pschemp | talk 19:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I am in the process of sorting out the subtle body article, it is looking better, but we need a scientific evaluation section. On the article it currently reads in one line "The existence of subtle bodies is unconfirmed by the mainstream scientific community" but no reference is given. If you have time, I need some help trying to find some sources for this. GreenUniverse ( talk) 21:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
You might be interested Ethereal beings GreenUniverse ( talk) 14:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick note, I've avoided commenting further on the OR board as it will inevitably lead to further squabbling, but I just wanted to say thank-you for the clarity in your answers, without it, I can pretty much guarantee you were going to be used as proof that the OR board agreed with his point of view regarding Seddon, and/or Momento's opinion of Rawat's situation. -- Maelefique (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
lol, I stand corrected, he's not done trying to find a way you agree with him...No good deed they say...
. --
Maelefique
(talk)
00:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Could you please explain to me how I have misrepresented editors and put forward a straw man argument? Thanks. Momento ( talk) 21:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Vassula Ryden". Thank you. -- Sasanack ( talk) 16:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to point out a minor inaccuracy in the Daniel_Harple page. Daniel Harple didn't found GyPSii/GeoSolutions solely, he was actually co-founder [2] [3] [4], and I (Sam Critchley) was the other co-founder. [5] [6] [7]. Daniel was CEO of GeoSolutions (and later Chairman and CEO of GeoSentric, which was also previously known as Benefon [8] [9]), and I was VP of Products. Rich Pizzarro was involved from 2007 onwards, and then we recruited other people (including a team of existing Benefon employees in Salo, Finland) from 2007 onwards. I actually started a predecessor location-based mobile phone software service called A2B [10] [11] in 2003/2004, then met Dan Harple in early 2006. We talked for some months about how we could build something new based on extending the A2B functionality. Then in 2007 we incorporated as a company.
I'd prefer if you could alter sentences referring to Daniel Harple having founded GyPSii or GeoSolutions, and the sentence beginning with "Harple is credited with the initial creation of GyPSii [...]" to reflect the co-founding role. SamCritch ( talk) 09:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response on my talk page LuckyLouie. Some of the references I provided in the comments here above should be useful, including GyPSii's own blog [12] where Daniel Harple is listed as co-founder, and Daniel Harple's own site [13] which says "In 2006, he co-founded and was Chairman & CEO of gypsii, which now provides the location-based social media engine driving China's fastest growing Twitter-like microblog, Sina Weibo." SamCritch ( talk) 13:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for making those changes LuckyLouie. Indeed, the dates are vague, partly because we were demonstrating the first prototype version of the app (on Windows Mobile) in 2006, but didn't incorporate GeoSolutions B.V. until early 2007, just before the Benefon/GeoSentric acquisition. In fact, the app was named GyPSii in April 2007, before that we'd been using the name GeoPlaceSpace. SamCritch ( talk) 14:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, LuckyLouie. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus 03:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hardworker.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus 04:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Scr299.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Marcus Qwertyus 04:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Wirelesset19.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Marcus Qwertyus 04:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Art13.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Marcus Qwertyus 04:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Marcus Qwertyus 00:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ethereal beings is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethereal beings until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Smallman12q ( talk) 13:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi LuckyLouie. Can you please explain what part fails the Wikipedia: Notability guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manvscode ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
You're no good can't you see
Lucky Louie Louie Louie
I'm in love set her free
Oh she's only lookin' to me
Only love breaks her heart
Lucky Louie Louie Louie
Only love's paradise
Oh she's only lookin' to me
Lucky Louie Louie Louie
Oh she's only lookin' to me
Oh let it Louie
She's under cover
Lucky Louie Louie Louie
Oh doin' what he's doin'
So leave it Louie
'cause I'm her lover
Please the other sources then, because it is a reliable source from the author otherwise the article should not be in Wikipedia-- 74.34.78.100 ( talk) 16:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, forgive me, if only the author hadn't made a horror story out of them and more factual it would be agreeable thanks anyway, just testing for honest user, but please join the WP:Teahouse-- 74.34.78.100 ( talk) 16:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sp600.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to spam you, but I think this is important, and would like to know your opinion. WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 22:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
please offer your opinion on the latest events on the parapsychology talk page. Ghosts Ghouls ( talk) 11:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (
talk)
13:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
couple pics recently floated to the surface, Brian in denver ( talk) 01:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
||
I hereby present you with the prestigious Nail on the Head award for this admirably expressed objection to having a section on "Extant species previously thought to be cryptids" in
Cryptozoology: We wouldn't have a stand-alone section in our Fringe science article titled "Extant science previously thought to be fringe" that was just a bare list of things like continental drift, existence of Troy, heliocentrism, Norse colonization of the Americas, and Big Bang Theory. Or a section of our Conspiracy theories article entitled "Extant conspiracies previously thought to be conspiracy theories". [14] Bishonen | talk 21:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC). |
Hello I saw some of your posts on the fringe noticeboard. I am afraid I do not know how to put an article up for deletion, the Intrasomatic model is a fringe theory self published in one book, it is not notable. Can you put it up for afd? Fodor Fan ( talk) 04:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This text has been considerably cut and altered by many editors that comes out of the blues and changes thinks as they feel like as if their versions are better than what it was. There were more information that people would have appreciated that had deemed (subjectively) unfit for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not as it used to be, it is sad. The editors are not even certified nor official, they just come from the mass who ever they are, imposes themselves as "improvist" editors, and pretend they have authority to control what has to be in Wikipedia or not and interpret the rules and the guidelines as they want with no coherence between one editor and the other... Basically, Wikipedia is a mess without any clue. I am surprised that there is at least good material, somehow incomplete (no thanks from the editors), but thank God there is Creators, that creates something. Yes Thank God for the Creators of pages for they make Wikipedia. The job of editors is to cut out real garbage, but from their zeal, they cut out more than they should have. Sometimes ignorance is to blame. They ignore the value of things, so they classify them as "nonsense" as if they pretentiously know everything there is to know. -- Fady Lahoud ( talk) 06:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Well done. If you are keeping track and he doesn't respond/prove they are legitimate, remind me please so I can block him. Dougweller ( talk) 05:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Re [15]: please review Wikipedia:User_pages#On_others.27_user_pages. To wit, if you have a concern with another user's page the first step is to discuss it with them, not edit their page. NE Ent 21:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Puffin Let's talk! 11:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Not a problem, glad to help. You're actually one of the few not only willing to help out with it but, much more importantly, actually fixes the articles when they're noted. Sure I found a couple iffy spots but 99% of your fixes were just what was needed. I'm always willing to try and tackle those first to help those users return to normality in their editing. Wizardman 02:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if you picked up on all the Paul Bedson socks, but you were talking to one here. I think he was having a go at you. Dougweller ( talk) 12:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm unwatching AN/I, since I'm getting a bit too involved in everything...can you let me know if anything meaningful happens in the Damonthesis section(s)? Thanks, Ansh 666 21:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, there has been a lot of unsourced and unreferenced material added to the article List of reportedly haunted locations in the United States in the last 2 days by IP 98.83.29.168. I have warned the editor against disruptive editing on his/her talk page and I see that you have done the same also. I would like to undo some of the unreferenced information and the copyright violations, but it is just too much and dispersed all over the article. What does one do in such cases? Ochiwar ( talk) 23:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it is important to reveal the Society for Psychical Research's purpose is to understand "events and abilities commonly described as psychic or paranormal by promoting and supporting important research in this area" and to "examine allegedly paranormal phenomena in a scientific and unbiased way." It does not however, since its inception in 1882, hold any corporate opinions: SPR members have a variety of beliefs or lack thereof about the reality and nature of the phenomena studied, and some sceptics have been active members of the Society. William James, Eleanor Sidgwick, Oliver Lodge, Andrew Lang and Richard Hodgson and the members of the SPR certainly believed they were taking, and are still taking, a scientific approach to their subject. The problem was and is that they are not always qualified to do this task. This is something to which they are unaware and are unwilling to confess. Pride. It is like Robert Todd Carroll asking me if "Christianity is based on mass Folie a Billion?" That is a question based on an ignorance of the ancient past religions, critical ancient history, and modern psychology. Kazuba ( talk) 19:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Basically the article already has said the procecceding for a long while without my criticism I just thought I would just pass it on to you. I got the impression you trusted nothing written or approved by the S.P.R.. I am getting by. Lately I met [16] Fordor Fan He has an interest in 19th century and early 20th century mediums.
Fodor, You may want to see this Church and Spiritualism by Herbert Thurston S.J.,1933, Chapter 9, The Accordian Playing of D.D. Home, pages 167-187 [17]. Kazuba ( talk) 22:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Kazuba ( talk) 22:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I added new external links to Arthur Ford. Not sure I did it correctly have links following entry Kazuba ( talk) 03:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I looked over your edit job of Arthur Ford. We certainly disagree on on the meaning and value of history. That Ford told conflicting stories of his life, lectured on magic, and an example of his fishing readings, I thought had value. Obviously we disagree on the value of biography, details and brevity. I would imagine autobiography has no value to you at all. Whatever. For example, Captain James Cook's journals of this travels across the world mean nothing to you because Cook wrote them? Kazuba ( talk) 21:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I used the the only materials I thought were reliable, and I did cherry pick. I don't think Milbourne Christopher made stuff up about Ford lecturing on magic. I don't think Ford's fishing reading was made up, or the effect he got on a client when he got a good hit on a deceased child. I don't think his biographers lied when they said Ford made up stories about his life. Or that Ford did not dazzle Arthur Conan Doyle and that Ford had his secretary burn materials. We have different views of history. What you don't like is a personal choice. It is not based on objectivity or value. It is based on whim. Whatever. I still have fun researching and writing about people that interest me. I really don't care if it gets deleted. I enjoyed the quest. I don't think you do. I have seen you add nothing to these entries just take away. I am sorry but my stuff is for the curious child, like myself. A curiosity we certainly do not share. I think you will find when it comes to writing history one is allowed to quote. Kazuba ( talk) 02:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Did anything ever come of this? I'm inclined to take it out of the conspiracy theory section if here wasn't ever any actual inquiry. Mangoe ( talk) 13:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Paranormal Witness may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi can you have a look at the above article when you have the time? An IP address is busy editing adding one particular Non- WP:RS website as a reference in a massive way. Thanks Ochiwar ( talk) 13:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Re: Norseen Can you elaborate on how you believe those sources have been misused? I think it's a pretty good analysis of the picture he provided of the state of modern mind control technology in the private sector.
Re: Psychotronic Weapons The main paragraph uses a number of sources that I do not believe appear in mindjustice, and the synthesis is completely different from that site. There is practically no analysis or editor opinion interjected. This information is well sourced, from government produced information in the US and USSR. Please elaborate on your "issue" with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis ( talk • contribs)
please see article for Frederic William Henry Myers and the abuse comments on the talkpage, I need some help on this issue. Doubter12 ( talk) 18:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
You see? The article got deleted. Nobody even warned me that it was being considered for deletion. It was deleted as "original research", and somebody said there was no way to back up what was written. What about reading the book? I think this is totally unfair. Tell me, why do people take it upon themselves to delete articles which others have written? What good do they think they're doing? Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 18:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for your contributions to WP. I have no problem with your edits on the above article since you have commented on the talk page. I had just restored a removal without comment and then it was removed again. I think your evaluation of the sources and notability of Robert Salas is entirely adequate to warrant removal. I now have noticed that sources 2 and 3 were written by the editor who placed Salas and Hastings on the list, clearly WP:OR. I appreciate that you had provided a clear edit summary. Keep up the good work, I don't ever mean to slow the improvement of WP by conscientious editors such as yourself. Sorry to have created a flummox on an issue that should have been pretty clear. MrBill3 ( talk) 02:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
How did I miss such a major case of WP:UNDUE? Mainstream scholarship has no doubts about this map. As for the Air Force, the only evidence for its involvement is Hapgood, whose ideas dominate this article. I'm busy now but Hapgood's bit needs serious pruning. Have you compared it to Charles Hapgood? Dougweller ( talk) 05:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I see you reverted two recent edits I made to the Daryl Bem biography.
[20] Your edit summary, "Response is to coverage in NYT, Guardian, other sources, not just peer reviewed"
, makes little sense to me. The Alcock material you reverted back into the article has nothing to do with coverage in the NYT, Guardian, etc. Nor does your edit summary seem to engage the policies I cited in making my edits. Could you explain further? --
92.2.70.41 (
talk)
19:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I saw that you placed a merge tag on Telephone telepathy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As this is now at AfD, I've removed the merge tag. However, I also see that no rationale was apparently given on the proposed destination article talk page, per WP:MERGEPROP. I expect this was just an oversight - but obviously there's unlikely to be much discussion on a proposed merge unless a rationale is stated. Old merge tags with no rationale given are liable to be removed by others without notification. I hope that's all OK and makes sense. Cheers. -- Trevj ( talk) 09:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Louie thanks for your comment. I was going to perm retire from wiki a few weeks ago as I am moving to NZ in October and am getting ready but I decided to stay on here a few extra weeks to finish off some of the articles. I know about the Eddy brothers. I will work on that by the end of the week. Cheers. Blastfighter ( talk) 13:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Shortwave listening you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
North8000 --
North8000 (
talk)
20:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The article
Shortwave listening you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Shortwave listening for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
North8000 --
North8000 (
talk)
11:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I looked you up from the Sheldrake talk page. What a surprise! I have a LOT of longstanding personal affinity for a bunch of the articles you started, specifically: Vintage, SX-28, Homebrew, Astatic, SCR-536, Hammarlund, and E.F. Johnson. The same exists with some that you have improved, especially WRL.
I got into SWL-ing and ham radio as a kid in the early 1950s. I was active as W3BOA for about ten years from 1955. I still have my ticket, but haven't been on the air in 40+ years. My best friend from early ham days, W3APR, just passed away a week ago, so I have been recalling a lot of those very old things and the very good times that they involved. That stuff gets in your blood, and you never can get rid of it. Some of my early ham stuff is chronicled on a personal web page HERE. It might bring back some memories for you, too. 73, Lou Sander ( talk) 23:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you had problems with this article in 2009. I have tried to fix it up. The magician Heredia revealed how the "spirit" hands were made [23] Fodor Fan ( talk) 04:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Needs sorting out: Ted Owens "Many people who met, investigated, and researched Ted Owens testified that he could predict and control lightning, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and volcanoes, through psychokinesis." Unfortunately I can't find hardly any reliable references for Owens. He was mentioned briefly in the Skeptic's Dictionary as a charlatan but that is about it. Fodor Fan ( talk) 09:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible change the article name nensha to Thoughtography? Fodor Fan ( talk) 09:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Once again this is false information, The Enfield Poltergeist is a British case, How can american Journalists be credible sources....The only source that can be relied on is a book Entitled This house is haunted by Guy Lyon Playfair.
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Poltergeist may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 14:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Why did you change my revisions? why have you added stuff about the Warrens? They had nothing to do with the case?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.111.196 ( talk) 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems that a completely False reporting of the Enfield poltergeist is now being reported and you are one of the proliferators??
Please stop your
disruptive editing. Your edits have been
reverted or removed.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgejoker ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Abstract Vibroacoustic therapy (VAT) traditionally considered to be a physical and receptive type of music therapy intervention, uses pulsed, sinusoidal, low-frequency sound on a specially designed bed or chair. Today VAT is viewed as a multimodal approach, whereby the therapist works with the client’s physiological and psychological experiences, incorporating a mind–body approach. This article provides current knowledge in clinical practice emphasizing the systematic and documented implementations of VAT. This includes presentation and explication of the key elements of VAT, assessments, treatment plans and procedures, documentation, and evaluation of the treatment with recommendations for follow-up care in health and rehabilitation. Recent research is presented, and directions for future research are considered. Applicable views on clinical training and required competencies are outlined.
Here are relevant literature examples from my own library
FYI: FDA does not approve pseudoscientific claims...
-- Cyrinus ( talk) 12:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Answer: VAT is a kind of sound therapy - not a music therapy. Some Music Therapists use VAT. VAT is VAS (Vibroacoustic Stimulation). VAS is already accepted by wiki (not a fringe theory). If you delete VAT then delete VAS too. One and the same - but VAT is not Music Therapy (musical notes, scales and beats that feels through ears vs pure sound frequencies feels through the body - in wiki example Fetal Vibroacoustic Stimulation). Hope that helps... --
Cyrinus (
talk)
13:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I recommend you hold back on rhetorical exuberance. It's fine to describe an idea as eccentric, wrong, refuted and so on, but describing the advocate as a "crank" may result in emails to the Foundation. You can email me to discuss privately if you like. Cheers, Guy ( Help!) 16:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
LuckyLouie Mmmmmmmm... Nah... NOT interested at Tilting at windmills... Thanks... but have fun cleaning out or makeing the world look clean, precise, normal, correct, accurate, apple pie, white, even white bread etc... no place for Eccentricity, Creativity, Gay, Alien (law), Decadence, Abstraction etc in the world... all that WP:FRINGE stuff! Not here to convert you LuckyLouie, better things to do like 'poke my eyes out with a stick'. Good luck with all the WP:REDFLAG WP:FRINGE what ever you fear LuckyLouie and the blitz gang it wont go away, your surrounded by it. Best Regards Vufors ( talk) 03:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Lucky Louie, I noticed that you objected to some on the content I added to the article Riddle House, on the grounds that Ghost Adventures isn't a reliable source. Well, I actually cited the Travel Channel, which should be considered reliable. A number of other articles use the Travel Channel as a source, see here. If you are still uncomfortable with me citing the Travel Channel, I may be able to find alternative sources. By the way, do you have any tips of improving the article further? I live in West Palm Beach and have visited the Riddle House at least once a year, so I'd like to get this article to at least GA. Regards, -- 12george1 ( talk) 15:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there any chance you can offer your opinion on the ganzfeld article talk page. User is claiming Terence Hines and other skeptical sources are wrong and is threatening to remove them. Goblin Face ( talk) 16:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I am new to Wiki editing so please bear with me. This is my first time using a talk page.
I attempted to edit the UFOlogy section of this entry and found a fabricated statement and two tangentally related citations, which I removed. Your explanations for undoing my changes were rather cryptic. Please explain so we can clear this up.
````Ufotheater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufotheater ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I added sources and information to this. I think they show notability due to the Russian response to this nonsense. I would be much obliged if you could revisit. I hope that was brevity! Panyd The muffin is not subtle 20:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I might need help with this article. About 60% of it needs to be deleted because it is sourced to his own paranormal papers. Let me know what you think. Goblin Face ( talk) 18:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Any chance you can watch over the telepathy article? IP gone mad, but I can't keep reverting him. Goblin Face ( talk) 18:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any opinion on the Colin Wilson quote that was recently added to the Gardner article. It seems dubious and is out of place. I think it should be removed, but rather get consensus first. Goblin Face ( talk) 21:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed that you suggested the opening paragraph failed WP:SYNTH, can you please point out some examples, because I was very thorough to make sure everything was properly cited was no interpretations. In fact I wrote it was a skeptic tone. Please let me know some issues you see. Valoem talk contrib 02:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey,
I think you might have misinterpreted. I was talking about the Dieselpunk AfDs, I have no problems with you and appreciate the work you've done on the article. There was another editor who I did have issues with in the AfD, trust me it is not you :) Valoem talk contrib 15:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Remember the I was concern with during the AfD? It is the TRPoD, I am uncomfortable with his edits on the article. During the AfD he removed cited sources for reasons I am not speculating on. Now after the AfD, he unwified the format, once again I will assumed good faith, but I intend to revert. I would be more comfortable if you edited the article. It is important that we write the article per sources. Proponents view have been swept under the rug which is undue. I think it is good to have an unbiased skeptic editing, I was hoping you agree with me. Valoem talk contrib 19:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Saw you comments after discovering an editor removing the lead as the sentences weren't simple enough. Do you want to start a merge discussion? Dougweller ( talk) 05:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that the new editor is talking about you on his talk page (and maybe me). I've reverted again. Dougweller ( talk) 18:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Can you look at the recent edits on this by Thundergodz some of it looks ok but some of it looks seriously fringe, he's inserting these same sources on many other articles as well. Not sure what to do about this. Goblin Face ( talk) 16:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Have you seen the article he created, Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill? A conspiracy video made up of copyvio from news broadcasts, etc. Dougweller ( talk) 07:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Please justify your changes on the article talk page. They are very extensive, amounting to gutting. Rather than revert you, I ask you to discuss. Yngvadottir ( talk) 04:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about that. Its creator wasn't bothering to look in the right places. Dougweller ( talk) 13:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Don't know if you believe in these kinds of recognitions or not (I typically find them to be fatuous), but just wanted to let you know that your help with UFO and other fringe articles has been greatly appreciated by me. jps ( talk) 14:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC) |
Dear User, before randomly deleting complete portions of contributions, you should learn to read. Materialization by a subject's will or with the hypothetical use of a third party is not proven. The existing stub mentioned that if it was, it would contradict the mass-energy conservation law. But THIS IS FALSE, as I showed. Thus whether you delete EVERYTHING, including this wrong interpretation of physics that materialization would imply a conservation law violation (which is not the case if energy is brought to the process), or you delete nothing from what I wrote, i.e. merely facts. You fascist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.101.208.168 ( talk) 20:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Anaphylaxis2014 (
talk • [[Special:Contributions/Anaphylaxis2014|contribs])
09:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Look at this article and let me know what you think? Many of the references are unreliable and I think there is too many quotes in there from Evans book. Only done a few minutes research so far all I have found for this was the piece in the skeptical inquirer which needs to be expanded on the article [27] Goblin Face ( talk) 22:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Not a lot of RS on this one. It seems most of what I find is centered on the 2012 movie When the Lights Went Out. Like a tabloid about the movie:
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)
copy available at
TheFreeLibrary.com.This book seems to have a case study. I don't have access but it is in many libraries.
It is in several other books but they pretty much fail RS.
A BBC background page, pretty much a "news of the weird/halloween feature" not significant coverage.
The BBC on the movie:
A recent credulous frankly poor quality book:
Here's another thoroughly credulous "analysis" of Colin Wilson's "trilogy" which includes his "work" on The Black Monk, which might be better subtitled "A Guide for the Gullible".
Another rather credulous account perhaps a little less so (note the book factory of Cawthorne for a hint of reliability):
I'll take a look via my library accounts but something tells me there is no reliable much less scholarly source that discusses this. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 06:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you look at the belief section on this article all sourced to journal of parapsychology or psychical papers etc. I have gutted a lot of these sources from the article. The problem is trying to find that content in reliable sources. Goblin Face ( talk) 16:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with my EVP page revision today. I think your edit makes the opening statements more balanced and neutral. One thing I would like to suggest though is that defining EVP as just 'voices' excludes certain other sounds which some people interpret as e.g disembodied music or animal noises, or even aircraft engines. If this could be woven into the statements to reflect that I think it would benefit the article. Kind regards. 188.31.15.170 ( talk) 20:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, understood; thanks for your reply, appreciated. 92.41.113.170 ( talk) 20:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
GWTreePlants ( talk) 23:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
This article needs to be fixed i.e. trimmed down and reliable sources inserted. There is also an IP adding in a lot of dubious material. Goblin Face ( talk) 22:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I will attempt to fix the xenoglossy shortly, but take a look at this Psychomanteum. Only fringe claims, I can find no reliable sources. Goblin Face ( talk) 22:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You are the one doing the reverts and edit war. I am providing references. Don't lecture me. Dickie birdie ( talk) 18:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. -- AlbaDeTamble ( talk) 03:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
See talk-page. It is a banned user. Goblin Face ( talk) 20:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello LuckyLouie-
I received your message regarding the book I added to the Summerwind Mansion Wiki page. I am obviously new to all of this and trying to take in alllll the guidelines. I wasn't trying to use this to promote myself, I wanted to add that I am writing a book about Summerwind that is coming out the summer of 2015.
Advice- should I just wait to add that to Wiki until AFTER the book has been released?
Thank you, PhantomGirl1979 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhantomGirl1979 ( talk • contribs) 10:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank for asking. No, the editor who made the change to Keep did not ask me or discuss it. Paul B ( talk) 14:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
A day or two ago, you wrote in a message to me, 'A list article of events characterized as "harmful or illegal acts" would need multiple, reliable sources for each entry.' Would you still hold that objection if each entry liked to a dedicated Wiki page that contained such references? Thanks for response. Slade Farney ( talk) 20:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Excuse LuckyLouie but i think that you wrong about Villa Dunardi. There are a lot of articles in internet (google) and in TV SHOW TARGET (i've posted link) they speak about this home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domicutrona ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey. I see you around the fortean articles all the time, and you seem to have a good hard nose about it. The article linked above is awful. Truly, truly, awful. I'm trying to give it a complete overhaul but just doing the initial work is throwing up about a million unexpected pitfalls. I've tried to put down a list of proper headings that an article with a good overview of the subject would have - but then I start writing on just the US military responses to it, and it's immense. There's too much to condense into a section, but I can't see anything else that properly encapsulates the entire subject. There are articles on the sightings, and reports, and projects, but nothing on 'US Military Response to UFO phenomena'.
Given that that is just a couple of sources and only 2 hours worth of writing - as someone who I trust to be good at this - would you make separate articles and completely condense the sections? Or would you allow the sections to be long? I mean, that's just the US. Brazil has its own long and storied history, not to mention the UK. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 16:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed, but the IP has an account - not a secret, evidently he/she normally edits anonymously. But of course if the IP changes, any record of discussions, etc on the talk page aren't easily linked to the account. Thanks for working on the article. Dougweller ( talk) 08:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Review by, and input from experienced editors is kindly requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thank you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Should headings maintain neutrality?. Sundayclose ( talk) 16:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out with all of my various inquiries. Cheers! - Location ( talk) 15:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
As I have set up [30] - could you transfer any useful references over from the previous version of the WP page; and if you wish to make use of the wiki for describing 'mysterious documents' feel free. Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I didn't intend to overwrite your edit -- I'm not sure how it happened. But I think the result is still okay. If not, please feel free to revert. Best regards, Looie496 ( talk) 14:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This seems to me to be a minor parapsychology position propped by paranormal proponents such as Greyson and Haraldsson. Does it really need an entire article? Should it be deleted? A little angry ( talk) 21:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't this article deleted? Someone has recreated it? A little angry ( talk) 02:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This article is new and reads like a promotional advert? Also see Mrenh Gongveal: Chasing the Elves of the Khmer. They are a right mess. A little angry ( talk) 11:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so I saw you undid two edits by an IP user, yet in two follow-up edits you essentially Put back in everything you took out. With the exact same edit summary "Please discuss removal of sourced material on Talk page, thanks.". Can you please explain why? I'm just curious. Cra sh Underride 00:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I see you have removed the link I restored earlier today to the poltergeist article. May I respectfully point out that your justification for this—that the paper linked to is "misleading pseudoscientific bunk"—is as bigoted as it is ignorant? Kindly read a posting I left here for somebody else who removed the link.
I am going to restore it and would be grateful if you would let it stand.
Alderbourne ( talk) 17:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Since my thank for this edit may seem passive aggressive when compared to my comment at Talk:List of cryptids, I just wanted to leave a message to clarify that it was actually accidental (I don't know of a way to undo). Sorry about that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi LuckyLouie,
Sorry, is it wrong to remove an element of a wikipedia biography page that the person in question does not want to appear?
--
GravitationalWavesAreReal (
talk)
02:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Why is it OK to allow a criticism section on Wiki? That info is all opinion and not fact. I don't understand your issue with my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizza2 ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed the rather large wall of text you posted to the article Talk page per Talk page guidelines since it was pure WP:SOAPBOX rather than a discussion of how to improve the article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The Hoffman accusation of "incompetency" in his assessment of the Watseka witnesses is not in any way supported by him. It is exactly the kind of throwaway comment that bears scrutiny, especially as it contradicts Richard Hodgson's cross-examination of those witnesses. William James was impressed enough with Hodgson's cross-examination to cite it in his classic text, The Principles of Psychology. 74.108.121.70 ( talk) 18:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I reverted you here. That was out of line; I hope it was just a mistake. Jytdog ( talk) 15:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, there is a case at WP:DR/N Regarding a case that you may have been involved in. I did not file this case, but, as the filer failed to notify you, I am notifying you. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey there. You might be interested in the repeated edit warring to get cryptid into the first line of Loch ness monster, WP:UNDUE be damned. :bloodofox: ( talk) 02:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Sea Lions. Thank you.
Guy Macon (
talk)
14:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Electronic Harassment NPOV". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 September 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
06:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I really think it's time to request a topic ban for Jed Stuart. Do you agree? If so, a simple "yes" will be enough. If I can find a couple of good editors who agree, I'll start an ANI thread requesting it and post a link back here. If you don't agree, please let me know why. Thanks, MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Proposed Topic ban of user:Jed Stuart from editing articles related to conspiracy theories. Thank you.
MjolnirPants
Tell me all about it.
16:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Electronic Harassment NPOV, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
19:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Given your involvement in prior discussions, you may be interested in what's going on over at list of cryptids. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, LuckyLouie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
For the record, a balloon is most definitely an aircraft, as the article clearly explains. However, it's true that object doesn't sound bad there, also to avoid repetition in the following paragraph. -- Deeday-UK ( talk) 01:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Louie, you used a book by Hephaestus to help source Morgawr (folklore) when you salvaged it in January. Unfortunately, those "books" are copied from Wikipedia. I've removed the source but you had other references in place, so no harm done. See WP:PUS for more about similar books and other unreliable sources. Fences& Windows 20:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "
Request to overturn administrator's decision". Thank you. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
04:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Saw your revert on the Billy Meier section. I have no strong feelings with that revert, but without the content you reverted it no longer relevant to the page itself and the whole section should be removed. Also on a policy aspect, not sure if PROFRINGE applies in that case for removal, since it's only used to reference his claim rather than stating the claim is valid. Something to think about at the very least. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 15:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on Miracle of the Sun, the article really needed it!
By the way, some of us are trying to slowly revive the old WP:SKEPTIC project. If you're working on anything that is related to skepticism or pseudoscience, don't hesitate to put it on the to-do list and/or to mention it on the project's talk page. It would help the project get some activity back. See you around! KarlPoppery ( talk) 19:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Kindly see talk page of this article. Thanks! Marax ( talk) 07:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I note that you nominated this article for deletion, and you have since gone ahead and deleted it. However the outcome of that AfD was to merge it, not delete it. Please respect that decision. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Adding more sources to talk page later. I almost took this to AfD. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
LuckyLouie, I don't understand your message. WHY would Wikipedia not want original research cited? D Addie — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonWDouglas ( talk • contribs)
![]() |
Hello, LuckyLouie.
I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. |
Hello, LuckyLouie. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, — Paleo Neonate – 01:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |
I appreciated your acknowledgement of my addition (Halloween Martin) to the history of radio disc jockeys. I've got lots more I could add. Now, I need to ask a favor. A few years ago, someone (and no, it was NOT me, contrary to some snide comments on my talk page)created a Wikipedia page about me. It's now badly out of date, but on the couple of times I tried to update it, I got taken to task & told not to do it. Okay fine, I understand conflict of interest. But how do I get someone to help update my Wikipedia page? More about me is easily found in newspapers, magazines, and at my website (www.donnahalper.com). I'd appreciate any suggestions about how to get the page to reflect the past 6 years of my life, professionally-speaking. Much love to you. DonnaHalper ( talk) 06:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I've been expanding some of our coverage on, for example, folklore genres. I've also been reigning in some of the stray cryptozoology-dominated pieces still out there. You may be interested in taking a look at the progress. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For your extensive work at WP:FTN and helping to keep the tin foil in check. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
I think we have a difference of agreement when it comes to fringe. Fringe topics are notable, but should be covered in a way that informs the public of their true nature. I really don't have any issues with our past interactions (except when you revert time slip which I'll chalk up to an honesty mistake), however fringe topics are notable and are of general interest to the public given that they are informed in the proper way. So in this regard we are on the same side. I strongly disagree that because a source claims the nonsensical subject it real nullifies it as an "independent" source, that is not the definition of an independent source. Goat people seems to have tremendous historical significance in the realm of mythology. There are many sources which cover this and the article need expansion not deletion. This article in no way hints Goat people are real I find it hard to believe anyone could interpret it as such.
I recently wrote Ammons haunting case because the film Demon House claims it was a real haunting and notable sources allege the same garbage ... ridiculous indeed. I've added sources which show the subject is notable, but also the skeptical analysis which clearly show this as a scam of sorts as are all "haunting" cases, but again this does not mean such things are not notable and I appreciate your edits to the page. I don't think we disagree in this regard. Valoem talk contrib 18:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
You may be interested in what’s going on over at Tatzelwurm, especially the article’s talk page. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Doug Weller
talk is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
As you kindly volunteered to help with the Biddle article, may I ask a different favor so that I do not go through the same AfD hell twice in a row? My next project MAY be creating an article on Bob Nygaard. I just heard him interviewed on a podcast, was fascinated, and decided to give it a go. I have created a sandbox with all the possible sources I could find, and before I do the real work of constructing an article out of them, and possibly waste a ton of time AGAIN, I want verification that he is notable. Can you take a look and offer an opinion? It is at: User:Rp2006/sandbox/Bob Nygaard
Hey you asked me to add those external Links to the External Links Section & go by the guidelines of Wiki which you linked and I read everything about Linking & External Links and how everything needs to be formatted. I followed all instructions and then another Admin who is being dishonest has lied and removed the external Links having some type of personal effect to what it was related to I can only assume considering the links were related to Electronic Harassment & Gangstalking which can clearly be reviewed and inv3estigated if I can get some other Admins involved who are honest. I would still like to add the external links they are relevant you can check them and they should be there on that page in Wiki this is important information that is not included or available and ads to the learning experience of Electronic Harassment and Ganstalking adding actual information on what a Targeted Individual is when it comes to Electronic Harassment, All the info is on that website I tried to link externally. I do research on the topic and felt it was worthy of adding. Please help me remove these false reports against me by this dishonest lying false accusation making Wiki Admin. I want to appeal and hold this person responsible for being dishonest and I have all the proof to back it up and to prove the external link I added was relevant and in need of supply considering its crucial information that is not provided by the thread or page. Credible information. Here is the URL - https://maininfo.wixsite.com/gangstalking — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResilientWiki ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello! You might be interested in this discussion. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
You may be interested in a piece I'm composing that I intend to use to address the widespread problems involving cryptozoology and poor folklore coverage that Wikipedia continues to face. Of course, you are welcome to contribute or make suggestions. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! deisenbe ( talk) 02:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi. After a merge and deletion of the original article ( Hollywood Medium with Tyler Henry), is there any way to see the edit history of that now deleted article? RobP ( talk) 19:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Good day LuckyLouie! It's been a year or more since we've interacted in a talk page regarding List of reportedly haunted locations in Bangladesh. I've been not active in these paranormal articles recently, except in modifying some pics. But not a long time ago, I'd noticed the fringe content regarding Bengali haunted locations were reinstated in article List of reportedly haunted locations (possibly by IP user or new user). I need your opinion if this violates WP's Fringe Theory Policy. I have no time recently due to my highly busy schedules. Thanks! :-) JWilz12345 ( talk) 06:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Please remember to
assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on
Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen. Warning is in regard to this edit
[34]. The user is a
newbie. Wikipedia already has an editor retention problem, please don't add to it.
-- ψλ ●
✉
✓
05:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I've been reviewing your edits to talk page archives (looooong story why), and I notice that you've been omitting an archive header from archives you manually create as recently as last May. Pleas remember to add {{ talkarchive}}, {{ aan}}, or a similar template to any talk page archives you create in the future. Thanks. Graham 87 12:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I’m a relatively new editor and I’ve been writing a page from scratch. I have had some suggestions that it may not meet notability standards. They’ve suggested that you’ve been helpful in the past and that i contact you for your thoughts. I see you’re busy, but if you do have some spare time would you care to look over my creation and tell me what you think? /info/en/?search=User:330highflyer/sandbox2 TIA 330highflyer ( talk) 00:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
LuckyLouie, thanks so much for taking the time to read my page, and give me such helpful and detailed feedback. It is my first attempt at a page from scratch so I’m very happy to hear of your approval, but I’ll still work a little harder to make sure it gets over the notability line. Cheers 330highflyer ( talk) 02:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
And thanks again for your generous time and efforts in editing my page. It looks great so I’ve published. 330highflyer ( talk) 20:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
A clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Clarification request: Paranormal (October 2018). For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 19:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, LuckyLouie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
On EH, this was an edit conflict not an intentional revert; let me know if you think it should be removed still and I can self-rv. VQuakr ( talk) 00:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
to what appeared to me to be a more appropriate spot. You may, of course, revert if you think it was a bad idea. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Autonova ( talk) 09:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi... If you recall I wrote an article on ex-paranormal investigator and now skeptical activist Kenny Biddle. It was deleted after a month-long argument on notability grounds. The NYT just published a story about a psychic sting operation Kenny participated in, and Kenny got more than a mention. It goes into his past and present activities. If I republish the Biddle article with this new info, would you support it? The article (no NYT info yet) is here. And here is the NYT article. RobP ( talk) 12:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi LuckyLouie, I just wanted to thank you for working so patiently with my student on the Ghost hunting article. I know that it can be difficult to work with people as they are learning the ropes and that it can often create more work for others--especially on a fringe topic like this. So thanks! Etherfire ( talk) 16:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
hello, did you read what I wrote on Ogopogo english talk page before calling my edit a disruptive edit ? Ogbaba ( talk) 03:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
for your heroic defense of the encyclopedia against invading UFOs (and the conspiracy theorists who pilot them.) E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC) |
"... with security agencies [and Wikipedia] seeking to suppress the evidence ..."
—
Paleo
Neonate –
18:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 16#School ghost Stories and forgot to include the ping. Would you take a look as I was seeking clarification on comments you made. Otr500 ( talk) 22:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi LuckyLouie. I have a question about the subject article which I see you were involved with in the past. This is what I have ascertained from the edit history:
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
![]() | This article may be written from a
fan's point of view, rather than a
neutral point of view. |
My problem with this is that the article's original author and main contributor, Mrmister22, is the show's producer, Brian J. Cano, [35] [36] and no COI was declared that I can find. This is certainly breaking some major WP rules, but the question is, at this late date, is there anything that can or should be done? RobP ( talk) 00:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I've added a new section to the discussion of the Bob Lazar article, about the statement that his claims were unproven. The source is too weak in my opinion to make that statement. Please let's discuss it there. Cutter ( talk) 17:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
That was not a change of the article, that was just a comment in the discussion. Factual information on the section topic. Why was this deleted? Because it has proven paranormal phenomena? That's hard evidence. Besides, that's not the article, just the discussion. If you tell me what I did wrong then I change the comment. It was a concrete answer to the section question. That cost time (sources etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias Claren ( talk • contribs)
Vintage amateur radio, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Graywalls ( talk) 20:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, LucyLouie. In 2015 FISM (the International Federation of Magical Societies) invited Uri Geller to deliver an inspirational, motivational lecture to over 1500 Magicians at FISM Italy. Uri’s highly acclaimed performance has been used along with other exclusive footage to create the first ever DVD from Uri Geller, “The Uri Geller Trilogy.” You will find this available on Ebay. I picked up one at a magic shop for $5. On the DVD set Geller admits he is a magician and can perform seven tricks. A magician performs illusions to entertain and awaken wonder and astonishment. Geller is NOT a magician. He is a con-artist who has made millions. He is addicted to the thrill of power, a rush of being able to pull one over on people and get away with it. He is very likely amoral. He claims he has changed but he has not. One only has to look at his web site. On the DVDs Uri does NOT explain his deceptions at SRI. He shows the SRI film clip. These are explained in: Flim-Flam: The Truth About Unicorns, Parapsychology and Other Delusions, by James Randi, Chapter 7, The Laurel and Hardy of Psi, pages 131-160, Lippincott & Crowell, Publishers, 1980. I suspect the magicians who thought they were going to get treated to Geller's explanation at this lecture of this classic SRI hoax or on the DVD set were very disappointed. (The initial price of this DVD set was $90.) But if you paid the big buck it is unlikely you would complain.
On the 2nd DVD of the Uri Geller Trilogy he talks about this one. Only he omits the deception part. One celebrated stunt was Geller’s “clairvoyant” knowledge of the death of Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser on September 28, 1970. Uri, giving a stage performance that day, appeared to faint in front of the audience, asked for a doctor, and appeared to be in critical condition. While apparently in some sort of spasm, he muttered faintly, “Nasser just died.” The announcement met with disbelief, was regarded as a somewhat crude joke by the audience, and there was laughter. But on leaving the performance, the audience learned of Nasser’s death and was duly impressed with Uri’s “crisis clairvoyance.” In actual fact, news of the Egyptian presidents death had been broadcast during the performance; a note with the news had been covertly slipped to Uri while he was on stage. Overall, Pelz stated, Geller has excellent presence of mind, a gift to solve or exploit unforeseen circumstances, knows how to extemporize and manipulate his audiences. Israeli impresario, Parapsychologist Daniel Pelz (He left Uri Geller) Exploit your opponent's weakness. Capitalize (profit) on another's human frailty.
Psychic seed growing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9MlA03GtKY Uri Geller exploits children https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN_AC9KHlM8 Uri Teaches Spoon Bending you can do at home.
The Psychic and the Rabbi: A Remarkable Correspondence by Uri Geller and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Sourcebooks Inc, 2001 (Playing on God is always a winner for Uri Geller) Con artists who get away with their scams for numerous years are extremely intelligent and are always likable. (Geller was a male model that helped.) They tell us what we want to hear and promise us what we secretly want. Sorry. I abhor brevity. Valuable data gets left out. Happy Magic. Miistermagico ( talk) 23:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The source you removed from the page is just a mirror containing the scan of the newspaper. You can find it elsewhere to verify. The source is not the website but the newspaper.
I will restore the edit. If you have better ideas on how to link to the source let me know. Gtoffoletto ( talk) 02:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I just inspected the recent article's history and would like to thank you for your vigilance in relation to unreliable sources that have recently been inserted (and since removed). — Paleo Neonate – 04:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!-- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear LuckyLouie, I made an attempt to add the following to Mind–body dualism but got WIPED OUT.
The body of evidence built up over years by psychologists and neurologists about the function of the mind/brain cannot simply be bypassed or dismissed. The monist (singleness) position was at one time a rather radical one that came gradually to be accepted because of the weight of evidence, and not because researchers wanted to avoid dualism. [14]
The reasons being:
as a quote it doesn't add anything of significance to the article, it's the POV of one writer and WP:WEIGHT says, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" – if you think it is significant, then it would be best to discuss it on the article Talk page and seek consensus from other editors – you say, the Alcock quote adds nothing to aid our understanding of mind-body dualism. Isn't likely the sciences of PSYCHOLOGY and NEUROLOGY give us a better understanding of mind-body dualism than philosophy? Perhaps I am mistaken but I would think the view of /info/en/?search=James_Alcock has some importance in this matter. Please reply soon. Miistermagico ( talk) 23:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | There is now a clear WP:EDITWAR over the Ufology article lead. Breaches of WP:3RR are flagrant. If you carry on with it I shall take you to WP:ANI/EW. |
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Ufology sprawling edit war. --— Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
12:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for making Pentagon UFO videos a reality. The LGM and I salute you. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC) |
Hello, LuckyLouie! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.
RedWarn is currently in use by over 90 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 13:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I did not write my own opinion. What I wrote was entirely documented fact and stands as testimony before congress. Before you suggest such things, I would recommend research and reading what I wrote properly. Are you biased against victims? Are you biased against documented fact? No where did I state my own opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshleyCaprice ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow editor,
the current version of the article Fiat Lux (UFO religion) contains a reference to a "Die Welt" article entitled "Sektenchefin Uriella fordert, Pädophilen freizulassen", which was first introduced by you in this version on 2015-11-22.
The translation of the term "Sektenchefin" as "Champagne boss" is incorrect, though.
The (in my opinion) correct English translation of both literal meaning and intended ring of the German phrase "Sektenchefin" would be "cult leader". The German version has a distinct negative connotation (and Springer publications are not known for their subtlety, anyway). The same is true for the English version, I believe. It should thus be appropriate to also include this connotation in the translation - if a translation is given at all.
Can you verify my assumption about the connotation of "cult leader"? Do you want to include the correction in the article, or should I go forward and do it myself? - Or do you think the translation should just be dropped?
All the best! Schlauschnacker ( talk) 15:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{u|
Gtoffoletto}}
talk
14:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I saw you reverted my additions to Close encounter only 7 minutes after I made them. I would ask that you take further time to review these additions. For instance, the new interview with Paul Hynek, son of J. Allen Hynek, on the update to the classification system lasts longer than 7 minutes, so it is impossible for you to have reviewed that material in full in this timespan.
I was left the message, "Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia". Thank you for letting me know why you reverted my changes. However, not only was it not my intention to add 'promotional' material, but it was unnecessary to have all of the edits reverted, instead of piecewise removing such promotional material (if it was even added). Can you please indicate which parts you consider promotional, and why? You could edit my latest version, with promotional content removed, and we could go from there – what do you say? To the best of my knowledge, I only linked free resources (that do not require any payment, much like Wikipedia itself). I put effort into updating the page based on recent developments, and would not like to have this effort go to waste. If there is only a formatting or citation issue that you are aware of, please direct me on how to improve the formatting. Everything I have added is verifiable and I would be happy to point you toward further verification sources. Thank you in advance for getting back to me so we can further the pursuit of free and open knowledge. Kind regards, Felewin ( talk) 18:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello Ad Orientem, and thank you very much for your response. In order to be clear, can you point to which particular sources you deem unacceptable? Thus far, only other Wikipedia pages on best practice have been shared. We should be able to determine this, as justification for the change. If it would take too much of your time, you could at the very least select one source and explain the issue with it, yes? It would also help to educate me if there is a key rule I am not aware of, as you claim. I don't think this is too much for me to ask. Here is a relevant excerpt from Help:Reverting: "Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing?" In particular, considering what one objects to should be able to be explained when asked. I will also review those pages you shared. Thank you, Felewin ( talk) 18:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, if an interview was conducted between two people and is only available on Youtube, how else can it be cited on Wikipedia? Does one need to generate a transcript? Does it have to be covered in the news? In this case, the interview is with Paul Hynek, son of J. Allen Hynek, who formed the original Close encounter classification system. As far as I'm concerned, that is very relevant, and for the sake of knowledge should be included, particularly because it was a milestone for the addition of a new class to the classification system. Please understand that I am interested in citing the indisputable fact that this interview occurred and am willing to explore alternatives to citing Youtube, but thought it best to share the direct source. What do you think is the best approach? I am open to suggestions. As for the other sources, I don't see how WP:RS applies *because of the fact that I am not making claims about the claims the sources make*. Is Wikipedia so mainstream that it isn't allowed to cite sources which would appear fringe to most people, just to say they exist? Are we to pretend that such things do not exist, simply because they are not mainstream? It's not like you have to agree with the content of the sources. I only made meta-claims in the sense that I was stating such things exist. I am not claiming any of the claims of those sources to be grounded in reality; that is a separate matter; I only stated that such sources exist. To put it more concretely; can it be argued that the following websites do not exist?: https://ace5handbook.com/ http://etletstalk.com/ Absolutely not. Furthermore, they are entirely free resources, so it is not promotional of me to mention them. If I was claiming that the claims of those sources are true, that would be another matter. But all I am doing is indicating the effect that Dr. Greer's work has had. This is not a matter of opinion, superstition, or belief. It is objectively true that those sites exist and that they have come about as a result of Dr. Greer's work. If there is anything else that catches your attention as a violation, please let me know. I must be sincere with you that I still do not understand the cause for reversion, although I suspect there is some suspicion at quick glance. This is indicated by the quick response (7 minutes after my edits), as well as your stating that "the others appear to be WP:FRINGE" which sounds like a perusal. Is that fair to say? Again, you can peruse them and critique their individual validity, but I am only citing the fact that they exist, not that the claims of the sources are verifiable. I'm thankful for your discussion and your commitment to Wikipedia. Looking forward to your response, and thanks for your time and effort. Felewin ( talk) 23:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Ad Orientum, again thank you for your time and sticking with me here. It is clear you are truly commmitted to Wikipedia's principles. I am interested in sharing up-to-date information within the confines of Wikipedia's rules. At present, information is lacking that seems to me should be easy to include. What you shared honestly makes so much sense, on paper. And I respect that theory in principle myself: a Youtuber's opinion is not often sufficient to represent mainstream knowledge. However, it is clear that this is not always going to be the point upon which a statement should depend. It should be possible, for example (as a thought experiment), to present a list of the most popular Youtube channels in a Wikipedia format for December 2019. This would require citation to those Youtube channels. This citation does not imply that those Youtube channels speak nothing but the truth. It only implies that they exist. The rules just aren't well-shaped enough, by your description, to allow for complete information verification on Wikipedia pages, by citing Youtube channels in such an instance; is it true that, as far as you know, there is no way (within Wikipedia's rules) to mention on the Close encounters page that Paul Hynek was consulted in a recorded, in-person, video interview setting about adding a new classification to the system his father created? Even though it is extremely relevant? And easily provable with video footage? If so, I will need to forget about Wikipedia altogether as a useful way of compiling information, and regard it as a site for "mainstream"-only (which is unfortunately also a subjective determination) and objectively out-of-date knowledge. If that is true, then so be it. I did not create the rules of this platform. If this is *not* the case, please proceed by telling me how I can include such information within the rules as you see them. I am *all ears* on ways to share verifiable knowledge, which is all I wish to achieve here. To be exact, the only statement I wish to prove in this regard (to your Youtube discussion) is the following: "A Close Encounter of the Sixth Kind is human-initiated contact (as in CE-5) but on a global scale, via synchronized meditation across the world. The Harmonic Convergence 2020 event is where this concept was introduced; as part of the event, Mark Sims interviewed Paul Hynek, son of J. Allen Hynek himself (who defined the original classifications), about this very Wikipedia page and this new classification." This statement is objectively true, indisputable, and not based on any "ideas and beliefs" as you bring up when saying "We are not a clearing house for all ideas and beliefs." and the video recording's existence proves that my statement is true, objectively. I wish to cite this fact and don't even have interest in implying that I agree with everything in the discussion recorded in the interview therein. So: • is this possible, with Youtube or any other means of citation • or is it not, meaning Wikipedia is forced to stay out-of-date on this extremely relevant topic (a literal video discussing the very Wikipedia page in question on the topic of a system created by the interviewee's father) I eagerly await your response. Thanks again for all your help, Felewin ( talk) 01:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Ad Orientem: So be it. Wikipedia is not what I think it should be. At least future readers who find this thread will be made aware. I thank you for your time and wish you the best. Felewin ( talk) 01:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)