Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal/Archive 7

message: We need to be ready. --Chr.K. 09:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important that we establish the notability of this declassification before writing too extensively on it. Declassification of documents occurs all the time and there aren't many articles in this encyclopedia on it. This means unless notability is established there is a great risk that extensive articles on such subjects will be successfully deleted. --ScienceApologist 14:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They could of course just have been stating that with the de-classification of these documents, more information will be available to provide more facts to help improve existing articles, and also provide the necessary ground facts for starting other articles, and not that we should be ready to write an article about the de-classification itself. Unless of course there are enough surprises to make the de-classification notable by itself, like you say. The Kinslayer 14:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, we need to be carefuly about original research. Including declassified accounts need to be done because there is an indication that some verifiable and reliable source considers the declassificaiton important to the relevant article. --ScienceApologist 14:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the fact that information is from the french government makes it notable and reliable? I agree that we would have to make sure we use it properly, i.e. to support existing material and not to jump around making 20 new articles based solely on what we think the new information could mean! The Kinslayer 14:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information itself may be notable and reliable, but incorporating such information into articles on, for example, Ufology should only be done if there are reliable and verifiable sources which connect the information declassification and ufology investigations. Simply positing connections on our own will not cut it. We need secondary sources of commentary to avoid original research, not just the primary sources of the released documents. --ScienceApologist 14:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I think what we are doing is making the same point, but approaching it from opposite sides! Anyways, as the French say, L'aisez faire! (I think I got it right, It's supposed to be 'Wait and see'!) The Kinslayer 14:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I bet the declasification is notabile on it's own accord.  Perhapse? ---J.S  (T/C) 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not. Although Britain's Thirty year rule is notable - it's an annual event featured in the papers each new year - individual declassifications aren't. If their contents are useful then they can help improve any relevant articles. Totnesmartin 13:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Sub-project Ufology 

message: I see the Paranormal Project banner on the SETI projecty article, and feel that it does not belong there. Some mainstream scientists may doubt the prospects of success of the project, but the people directing the various projects are indeed university credentialled scientists, using radiotelescopes rather than magic crystals and their results (or lack thereof) have been duly reported in mainstream scientific journals. There is nothing about their observation methods which is an any outside normally understood principles of radio,  astronomy, and signal processing. I request the removal of the project banner on these grounds, since their science is normal rather than paranormal. Edison 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so much that we consider it 'paranormal'; I wouldn't use that term to describe it at all. However, for continuity and completeness' sake, we have taken Astrobiology up to some extent under our project banner. I assure you, we mean to make no claims by the inclusion of that banner. --InShaneee 02:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Basically, we watch over anything in the UFO/alien sub-header, even tho some of its not strictly paranormal. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 01:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SETI 

message: The article mentioned above is currently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to take part in the discussion at :Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CASPR. Thank you. Badbilltucker 21:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[CASPR]] article up for deletion 

message: I just recently found the project named above, which has as its now-slightly-clearer objective to work on all articles related to cryptids. As this project is somewhat related to this existing project, I wanted to let you all know, so that you could consider joining if you choose to do so. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm it looks like it's mostly inactive.  Before your edits the most recent activity was July & October.  Maybe a merge to here would be best? ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 22:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly not, as the previous page was basically about only proven biological cryptids. Also, considering that the existing :Category:Cryptozoology contains articles on biology, mythology, and paranormal occurrences, merging it would probably be counterproductive. However, I do plan to break down the categories so that the other interests projects can deal with them as well. Badbilltucker 22:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm all for listing it as a subproject of ours. It's always been the goal to make a subgroup for Cryptids someday; I just would have preferred to wait until we had more members. Either way, I'd think it needs to be renamed to WikiProject Cryptozoology, don't you think? --InShaneee 22:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology]] 

message: I have found this link while hunting for that pix. The link is the alleged Firefighter's Guide for dealing with UFOs. Martial Law 22:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is this:Firefighter's Disaster Control Guide: UFOs. It purports to have protocol in place for controlling disasters caused by UFOs. I was going to set up a article called "Firefighter's Disaster Control Guide: UFOs" using this source. Martial Law 22:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a good link ? Martial Law 23:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found this.... 

message: The link for the pix is UFO Cases incl. O' Hare Airport Pix. Case is this: Ark UFO Seen as "The Anti-Christ/Devil, and UFO seen as "Of The Devil". I've investigated this one myself. My primary witness says that the Arkansas case may be a military exercise or a hoax done by aircraft, while locals swear that The Devil is in the area. Can someone place the Airport pix ? I'm still investigating the Ark. case. Martial Law 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there actually article for any of these incidents? --InShaneee 00:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I was hoping that was an actual photograph of the O'Hare UFO. It's just an illustration.--~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 00:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should help. This is from a plane comming in when the UFO was spotted: O" Hare Pix from a incomming airplane pix is on the left. Still hunting. Martial Law 20:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least that one claims to be real. Thanks. I doubt it's real though. It doesn't really match the description of what was reported. The most obvious problem with the photo is that the object was described as being "just below the cloud deck". I don't see that here. It's much too low, there's no clouds really, etc. The biggest problem with the photo is that the witnesses called it an overcast day. And yet you clearly see sun reflection on the top of the UFO. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 21:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops, here's the artist's page. Guess this one's busted. Everyone is saying that there is at least one authentic photo out there somewhere. The scavenger hunt is on! --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 21:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google: O' Hare Airport UFO. Been hunting there. Found a video link as well. I'll get that ASAP. Martial Law 21:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one. Peter Davenport has been trying to get the witness to publish it. Said witness will not do so, due to fears of being terminated from his job. Sounds like the witness's boss got to him/her. The Robertson Panel, other govt. protocol says that if "you" spot a UFO, alien, you're to be considered crazy, unreliable, thus "you" lose your job, social standing, etc., even end up in jail, as what some military personnel have told me while I was travelling the US. Martial Law 22:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just been to the National UFO Reporting Center website, and it says that the witnesses have been, as I have suspected, have been coerced into silence and have been ridiculed as well. This info was there, as of the indicated timepoint. Martial Law 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Got pix of O' Hare Airport UFO, case 

message: The above named article was deleted as a copyright violation. If anyone could recreate the article without violating copyright, it would greatly be appreciated. Badbilltucker 18:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[David Sereda]] deleted 

message: Everything I've seen keeps dovetailing to the National UFO Reporting Center, especially all info. concerning the O' Hare UFO Incident. Still hunting a pix. Martial Law 20:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the place to discuss this kind of thing, Martial. --InShaneee 20:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[National UFO Reporting Center]] 

message: Non-notable ? Can this be explained ? It was more than that, even used to refer to the Phoenix Lights, other famous UFO cases. Martial Law 10:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article even referenced MAAR, which is this: The Malevolent Alien Abduction Research Organization, which references different alien types people have allegedly encountered. Website is www.maar.us while UFO Casebook is www.ufocasebook.com Still after a pix of the O' Hare UFO. Martial Law 20:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[UFO Casebook]] deleted 

message: Just a heads up that List of haunted locations has been nominated for deletion here. The Kinslayer 00:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of haunted locations]] 

message: Hi all, 
Someone tagged the Sweater curse Talk page a few days ago with the banner from this WikiProject.  I hope you'll be understanding, but I don't think that the sweater curse is paranormal in the usual sense.  From my perspective at least, it's not magic or otherwordly; it's just two people not understanding each other, not understanding their differing interpretations of a gift.  It's strange and counter-intuitive, perhaps, but I think its various mechanisms could in principle be understood with enough careful observation.  So, if you're OK with it, I'll remove the banner in a few days.  Thanks for understanding, Willow 23:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The banner was placed there because the article is within the :Category:Curses, which by its name clearly does indicate Paranormality, as it were. I myself don't agree that everything in the category is paranormal, but by inclusion in that category the categorizer implicitly indicated that it was. Right now, I am not only tagging the articles and trying to assess them, but also creating watchlists for the various projects involved so that we can know how best to categorize these articles later, so that such problems don't continue to arise. And I am going project by project, so that I don't wind up confusing myself over which banner should be placed on every article I find. I would have no objections to the removal of the banner, but might request that the article also be removed from the :Category:Curses, which indicates at least implicitly that there is some sort of "paranormal" connection. Also, if you can find another banner that does assessments that does apply to your article, please add it with an appropriate assessment, so that the Version 1.0 editorial team has a basic idea of where the article stands. Thank you for attention and your polite statement above. Badbilltucker 23:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the banner after reviewing the article, it's history and it's talk page.  The article is clearly about a Curse.  it is in need of some skilled editing, however, to bring it in line with similar articles about such folk beliefs.  The argument that this is about a set of relationship issues is an opinion which dominates the article to the point of bordering on original content.  In order for such comments to stay, ciatations referencing such beliefs amongst knitters need to be made.  it's no different than asking an editor to cite a statement that Saying Bloody Mary 3 times in a mirror is less about superstition and more about adolescent rites of passage. Before removing the banner again, I'd prefer to see a discussion here with input from more than just the author of the article.Lisapollison 21:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm very sorry to have upset you about the removal of the banner.  I asked about removing it the very day it was put up by Badbilltucker on Talk:Sweater curse; I asked again two days later, on this page, just above.  Bill seemed to have no objections to removing it, but I waited five more days before removing it on the 30th.  Again my apologies, and I'll try to satisfy you before removing it again.  Have to go, at work, Willow 22:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweater curse 

message: Winslow Arizona is famous for having the meteor crater nearby. Now it has a  bizarre UFO report The UFO is reported to be a triangular construct surrounded by a circular construct. I was planning on placing this on the List of Major UFO sighting article. I've seen WP's update on the O' Hare UFO pix as well. Nice job. Martial Law 21:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should this be added ? Martial Law 21:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the ship was looking for Starman. :D Dreadlocke  ☥  22:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winslow AZ. UFO 

message: We don't have a single vote for a collaboration next month...so rather than put up a new collab with no support, I'm just going to extend the current one if no one has any objections. --InShaneee 02:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just added a nomination.Lisapollison 08:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration 

message: I was thinking about improving the weeping statue article and wonder should it be a part of this project?Mr Christopher 20:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's tough. It's either ours or the Religion project's. --InShaneee 20:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not both? Aren't miracles paranormal? Totnesmartin 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They could be considered that, yes, but I see no reason to cover something that's already obviously covered by another project. --InShaneee 21:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think they'd have their angle and sources and we'd have ours - we'd dig the tunnel from both ends. I've come across all sorts of articles that come under two or more projects. Totnesmartin 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm well aware. I just think since we're a bit more of an 'open-ended' project, we might be best served by focusing on the articles that don't fall under the jurisdiction of any other projects. --InShaneee 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a Wiki project for religious inspired paranormal?  Could someone shoot a link my way?  Thanks Mr Christopher 22:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just for religion in general. However, if they say they aren't interested in the page, I guess the ball's back in our court. --InShaneee 04:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The religion WikiProject covers over a hundred times as many articles as WikiProject Paranormal; it seems a fair assumption to say that this project is much more likely to contribute productively to Weeping statue than that project is. And, as noted, the article correctly falls under both projects, though more under this one than under Religion, since weeping statues are always paranormal, but not always religious. -Silence 04:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, there are other articles that fall under the scope of multiple Wikipedia projects. An example being Cottingley Fairies, which falls under both WikiProject Paranormal and WikiProject History of photography (it even has different quality scale ratings from each one). So it seems like including weeping statue wouldn't be setting a precendence. --Careax 06:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well here is a compromise - currently the weeping statue article is primarily original research and unsupported POV.  I'll work on cleaning that article up and then return here and invite the other editors here to come check it out and see if it makes sense to include it in this project.  Mr Christopher 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  weeping statues, painting and similar paranormal hoaxes 

message: Need to know how active you are with the project and what you're currently working on. Note to those signing here: Please don't forget to add your name to our participants page, as well!
*Semi-Active On the weekends I edit so, --C.Black 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ) - Andrew Homer 19:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm back to working on the project after getting side-tracked by gender articles and lesbian history, a side-interest of mine as anthropologist (not as an activist). I was concentrating on expanding cryptozoology stubs.  I'll go back to that unless anyone would like me to work on something else.  Please leave me notes on my talk page with requests for articles or areas of the project you would like help with.  I'm a better editor now and much better at citing sources!  Lisapollison 09:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow.  Good luck.  I just took a good luck at that article, it's talk page and it's history and have concluded you are a very brave editor!  That article is a cesspit of controversy.  I wish you every success in cleaning it up and having your edits not reverted for political reasons. Lisapollison 14:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Lisapollison!  Cesspit is a good word for that article (Natasha Demkina)!  Even though those types of "disputes" suck the fun out of editing Wikipedia, I'll probably continue working on it when I am able to get back online.  If I can stomach it further.  Dreadlocke  ☥  05:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The show airs at 23:00 hrs(11 pm) MST/MDT. Exact time is on the Coast To Coast AM website. Martial Law 04:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The show is for Wikipedians who work at night in the US or is on the opposite side of the planet. Martial Law 04:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still here. I've been on a case. I am a paranormal investigator. One place I've been to is Gurdon, Arkansas to see about the "light" there, which is a multicolored thing, another is Fouke, Arkansas, to see about the thing there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martial Law (talk • contribs) 04:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My recent case involves a Flying Triangle incident near Shreveport, Louisiana. Martial Law 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still Here. Been following leads about DEAD Birds in Austin, Texas and Australia. One sec. they're flying, next sec., they're falling down, dead. Cause unknown. See Google about this for verifiable material. Martial Law 21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition to this article, the following related pages were extensively re-done in a similar fashion: Flight 19; USS Cyclops (AC-4); and SS Marine Sulphur Queen.  Other pages mentioned as "famous incidents" with the Bermuda Triangle page will also be worked on.  Carajou 04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Merged and cleaned up articles on aircraft Star Tiger and Star Ariel; previous article on Star Tiger should be deleted. Carajou 07:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Bermuda Triangle source page was created as a separate article, and it was made specifically to handle all sources for the Bermuda Triangle...and this was simply beause of the large amount of material I discovered while working over the Triangle page and related incidents.  It's in progress, but check it out and tell me what you think.  Carajou 22:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roll Call 

message: First of all, I think that a lot of paranormal stuff is just plain hogwash.  And I can pull out the evidence to prove it.  That's one side.  But...
Whatever is written in Wikipedia should include all the facts and all the history of the subject in question, and by both I mean the facts and history of the other side as well.  Let's say Junior the Ghost raided the White House one day, and he's in a logbook dated June 1906, and Junior was witnessed by Theodore Roosevelt.  Should not that be included in the article as part of the history of the subject, even though the incident was proven to have never happened?  If one looks at the Loch Ness Monster, there is a lot there that states the ugly fact that Nessie is a hoax, but to leave out the monster's overall history is a disservice to the reader who just wants to see a good article.
Now I did make up Junior the Ghost, but Teddy Roosevelt did write in his diary that he did see the saquatch.  Should that be left out of an article on bigfoot's history just because someone said bigfoot's a fake?  I don't think so.
What each writer could do (up to and including just swallowing their pride!) is to alter the article in some way that would have each section divided into "pro and con" subsections that gives both sides of a story and links to sources, and be as neutral in the writing as possible.  Carajou 02:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the hoax section to Loch Ness monster, even though I believe in Nessie (there - I said it!). The article needed such a section, so I looked up some well-known hoaxes and wrote them up. I could perhaps argue that my belief in Nessie lead me to read a lot about it over the years, which meant I knew roughly where to look when researching. This wikiproject needs believers AND sceptics to make rounded articles. Totnesmartin 19:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy guideline

message: If James Randi is going to be the subject of skepticism, start with these two links, both pulled from YouTube.com:
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc&mode=related&search=
The first one is the better known, as it shows Randi exposing Uri Geller through Johnny Carson on "The Tonight Show" back in the 1970's.  Carajou 18:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Video links

message: I'm in the process of splitting the Bigfoot article, but I'm stuck for a name for a proposed article on physical evidence (the section is simply called "physical evidence"). If I call it "Physical evidence for/of Bigfoot" that's too POV. If anyone has an idea, please visit Talk:Bigfoot#Bigarticle and fire away. Thanks.Totnesmartin 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bigfoot article 

message: There is a deletion vote going on for Criticism and response in parapsychology, which could go either way.  Take a look and see what you think. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article could use some work.  I would like to add some stuff about the history of para-research which goes back to the 19th century.  If anyone from this project would like to help with this page, I have some ideas about how to improve it that I will post on the article's talk page. Puddytang 00:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion vote on Criticism and response in parapsychology 

message: Found it on www.ufocasebook.com/allegedoharephoto.html I'm on a junky linksys unit. Martial Law 04:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More to follow.Martial Law 04:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martial, it says at the top of the page this isn't the place to discuss the paranormal. --InShaneee 04:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My sig got screwed up, thus the above malfunction to my sig. Martial Law 04:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but that'd be for that talk page; I don't see how this concerns the whole project. --InShaneee 04:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was planning on setting up the article, then place the pix on it to illustrate it AS "Alleged Pix of O' Hare UFO". More pixes have surfaced on Google, other search engines. Martial Law 05:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Project members will be of assisstance. Martial Law 05:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So go ahead and set it up. You can't just post here every time you need to start a new page. --InShaneee 06:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any copyright problems doing that ? Martial Law 07:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm making sure there are no problems. 07:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Once again, starting a page does NOT require the attention of the entire project. Please take this discussion elsewhere. --InShaneee 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically to the talk pages of the individual page in question. --Chr.K. 20:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOT O' HARE UFO PIX 

message: Seen it myself. It is Alleged pix of UFO
This link also has pixes of the UFO, source info. This is Multiple Witness Spot UFO
Maybe we have THE pix. If not, I may have to go to the National UFO Reporting Center's website to see if Peter Davenport has got the witness to release it. The UFO is in the upper right corner in said pix. Martial Law 20:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, starting a page does NOT require the attention of the entire project. Please take this discussion elsewhere. --InShaneee 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically to the talk pages of the individual page in question. --Chr.K. 20:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Got UFO Pixes

message: Hey everyone,
I'm new to the Paranormal Project, but I am very much interested in helping out.  I saw the list of needed categories at the top of page, and was considering doing, if no one else had, the Exeter Incident.  
I noticed that someone was doing an update to the Bermuda Triangle page, and I remember reading a book called Unexplained Mysteries of the Past, where the details of Flight 19 are recored, now I dont remember if the page on Wiki has some of the details I read, but I saw an episode of Digging for the Truth, I believe, and it did have some of things I read, which makes me wonder which version was accurate.
I was also reading the article on The Stanley Hotel, being a fan of Ghosthunters ( reporting several things to their website at the time. )  It mentions TAPS going there, but not why, and its possible connection to The Shining.  That could be researched in the future, and the article could be updated to reference the hauntings. 
Anyway, thanks for hearing me.
Spooky Brian 14:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your help would definitely be appreciated...especially since Exeter is one of the only cases actually classified as a bona-fide "Unidentified Flying Object" by the non-classified U.S. military documents on it (though only after Congress itself demanded they cease with the total BS answers they were giving as to what it was).  Exeter is a benchmark alongside that place in New Mexico and Rendlesham. --Chr.K. 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exeter Incident 

message: Just came across a banner which contains several other banners here - could we adopt this format for such over-bannered pages as Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster etc? Totnesmartin 11:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nice way to neaten things up, huh?  I think it's fine but I would get approval from projects outside Paranormal and Cryptozoology before stacking theirs in with ours on any given article.Lisapollison 14:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only polite to ask - we don't want more banner arguments... Totnesmartin 15:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles with several banners 

message: Comment would be welcome on the Psychic talk page. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychic page 

message: Occam's razor appears on many paranormal pages, but the main article is a mess!  I nominated it for AID.
Puddytang 21:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occam's Razor 

message: Frog is in WPP. I don't know if this is a closet-insult by sources unknown, but the notion of that making it in is mind-numbingly stupid...unless I'm missing some part of the article that is totally blank on my screen. We need to have something underneath Stub, that of TBW, To Be Withdrawn. It might also be called the Janitor Option. --Chr.K. 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The background and letter colors should be black and white, respectively, in the same fashion that Wikiproject Formula One uses for their races, for disqualified cars. --Chr.K. 21:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or...we could just remove the banner and leave a little note instead. That seems far simpler. --InShaneee 08:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to find a way where it can be successfully brought up for debate to begin with, basically earmarked for removal, and those removals done en masse at the end of each month. --Chr.K. 07:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New assessment rating needed 

message: There is an article about this hominid here: Homo floresiensis.  Could lead some credence to tales about leprechauns etc.  I know that the Native Americans in the rockies believed in little people who lived in caves in the mountains and were cannibals.  Some cowboys in Wyoming found a little mummy one time.  They stuck it in a boot box, but it was stolen, but there were photographs taken of it.  However, I could not find a wiki article on it, so is this a missing cryptid?  Does anyone know what it is called?  Anyway scientists now say that the wee people survived until at least 13000 years ago--and this was completely unexpected!  -- Puddytang 23:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Loren Coleman covers the Homo floresiensis at Cryptomundo.com whenever a news story shows up about them. The press started calling them Hobbits straight away and it's stuck ever since. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 05:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Homo floresiensis is the subject of heated debate within scientific circles.  There are several camps.  One camp believes it is a race of pygmy humans and not a new species or sub species, another camp believes it may just be a type of dwarfism, yet another believes it is within the range of normal variation, another still says ity's a sub species of homo sapians.  Access to the remains has until recently been greatly restricted.  Some new info is due out soon since access to the remains has been resolved.  For now it is both a "real" scientific issuer AND a Cryptid.  However, nobody connected with the study of these remains even remotely believes them to be responsible for legends of little people.  The theory is that if Homo floresiensis is indeed a sub species or new species, it evolved the way it did due to geographic isolation of populations and the environment where they were found.Lisapollison 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hobbit-like Hominid? 

message: IBM just announced that they've put out a paranormal-targeted search engine, UFO Crawler. If this actually works, this could be a fantastic resource in expanding and sourcing articles. I plan to add it to the main project page shortly as a resource. --InShaneee 03:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source resource 

message: Since it hasn't been announced here before, I thought I would mention WikiProject Alternative Views, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant "alternative views"—those theories, hypotheses, conjectures, and speculations which, though notable, lack widespread acceptance, and which may challenge a "dominant view" which does have such acceptance.  It overlaps WikiProject Paranormal but has a broader scope, encompassing alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities.  We haven't had too much activity, but feel free to stop by! Tim Smith 22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: awe-fricking-some! Idon'texist 01:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Alternative Views 

message: I'd like to initiate another clean-up of this article, as the amount of unsourced claims seems to have spiralled out of control again recently. I've laid out what I plan to do in Talk:List of allegedly haunted locations The Kinslayer 12:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of allegedly haunted locations]] 

message: Our project seems to be losing some of the steam it once had.  To that end, I invite other members to look over the talk pages of some of the most frequebntly edited articles within the project on your watchlist and find one non-member to invite over her to join us.  I suggest finding someone who isn't necessarily a True Believer or a Skeptic and is instead someone with a strong personal interest in a particular topic under the projects guidance.  Let them know that as a project, we do not seek to tilt an article in any one direction but that we do seek to add as much well-sourced info as we can.  let them know their good work has caught your eye and that you feel they would be an asset to the project even if they only work on a few articles within their own area of interest.  Remind them that by being a member, we can support their work and keep an eye out for vandals with them.  Tell them about our colaboratyion of the month project and maybe tell them about some of our successes.  Once you have invited them, add a note here saying 'I have invited so and so" so we don't invite the same people.  Pledge to invite at least one or two people before the end of march!  We can do it.  (note i changed my signature) LiPollis 04:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an excellent idea, Lisa, and glad to see you're still around :). I'll add as well that people who show a willingness and skill in discussing ideas and disputes with others are also great candidates, especially in a collaborative atmosphere. Also, what I've found works great for an invitation: let them no that joining comes with no responsibilities, and if they'd just like to watchlist this talk page and keep track of what the project's up to to get a feel for things, that's just fine. --InShaneee 05:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energize the project! Invite someone to join 

message: The article was just vandalised and I have no idea how to revert to the previous version, could someone take a look at it please?--Tascio 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well caught. I've reverted it back to the previous version. --Careax 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Careax! I must learn how to do some of that stuff sometime! :-) --Tascio 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we need to lock the Cottingley Fairies article? Looks like it is getting a bit crazy there... --Tascio 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would  recommend reporting the vandals for action but first make sure you leave a note on their talk page asking them to stop vandalising or to be more polite, to stop making uncronstructive edits.  An admin is more likely to take action only after an isp or user has had a couple of notes like that on their user page.  in the meantime, you can semi-protect the page which is less drastic.LiPollis 23:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cottingley Fairies 

message: Here's an RfC of interest:  Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Martinphi.  Dreadlocke  ☥  00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Who would even suggest those two projects merge? They're two totally different things! Somebody should read the article on Psionics...Lighthead 02:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psionics and Paranormal? 

message: I think that very soon an arbitration will go on regarding paranormal topics at Wikipedia, especially with regards to Electronic voice phenomenon. You can find discussion about this impending litigation here. Please advise. --ScienceApologist 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have we got a editor going bad ? OR is there something else going on ? 65.163.113.145 22:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being offensive, etc. at all. What is going on ? 65.163.113.145 00:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a user RfC involving EVP and other paranormal topics going on now, linked below, that may be of interest.  Other than that I'm not aware of any other active DR (the EVP article had a proposed moderation but it seems to have fizzled out).  --Minderbinder 12:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paranormal arbitration 

message: I noticed the free energy suppression article had a link to this group. I just did a series of major edits on that article because it was, to put it plainly, horrible. I didn't see a link to it on your main project page, but I thought I'd give you guys a heads up that I did a major reworking of the article. Titanium Dragon 06:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Energy Suppression 

message: Despite the fact of my recent clashes with members of this project I want to suggest an article about one of the less cranky researchers involved. I was really surprised, that there's no article International Consciousness Research Laboratories, see http://www.icrl.org/history.php.
It's somewhat the step-child of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab. Uggh. Seeing the mess there, I'm wondering whether this is good idea...
Pjacobi 11:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article suggestion 

message: I've added and partially populated a new cat "Category:Paranormal terminology" for paranormal and parapsychology terms, and I've created a new infobox for paranormal terms, too.
Template:Infobox_Paranormalterms
perfectblue 14:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Cat and info box 

message: The Mel's Hole article needs some help. It's an interesting topic (regardless of its legitimacy), and I think Jaysweet has been doing a great job cleaning it up. But the subject seems to suffer from a lack of credible external sources. Does anyone know if it's mentioned in any other bona-fide media sources (aside from the onces already listed on the article page)? --Careax 16:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look.  Articles based almost entirely on Art Bell'show are always problematic. Looks like there's not many ways to improve the article becuase Mel is just waaaaay out there and is the only source for this info.  There are some discussion groups and fans of Mel who are still looking for the original hole but it coul all be solved with a word or three from Mel himself.  I do plan to add some discussion to the similarities to Mel's Holes (there are more than one now) and the delusion Charles Manson had about a similar hole he believed to exist out in Death Valley. In the words of the immortal Ed Sanders oooh-weee-oh! LiPollis 00:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been working on trying to bring this article up to snuff and I could use some help.  As with most Art Bell subjects, it's hard to dfind citeable sources other than the Art Bell show itself.  if anyone can help me confirm that there were pre-existing legends of a bottomless hole in that area of Washington State, I'd be much obliged.  Thanks.LiPollis 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mel's Hole 

message: *Finally got this article up! let us enjoy and expand this article hehe (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 17:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice work!  it's rare to see a new article with both references AND a photo.  Great job.  I'll see if I can add anything to it. Thanks also for letting usknow about it.LiPollis 17:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Teslascope]] 

message: I have heavily revised this article to try and include facts and criticisms.  A very long and revealing article in Salon appeared last week that summarized some of the more troubling aspects of Castaneda's apparant cult of personailty that appears to have led to the suicide of his closest followers follwing his death in 1998. Indeed, his books have been considered academic frauds since the mid 1980s but he remains a very popular new age figure or guru to many. I tried to strike a balance in the article.  I would welcome input.  I did tag this article with our project name because he referred to himself as a sorcerer and his philopshy as a method of magic.LiPollis 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Carlos Castaneda]] 

message: I have been working on a number of articles related to this conspiracy theory and I would welcome input or a rating of the articles I have been trying to beef up such as: Ralph Rene, Bill Kaysing and then main article itself, Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations.  Thanks. LiPollis 19:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations]] 

message: This paranormal WikiProkect article is in danger of being deleted. Please cast your vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Tsarion. Thank you. -Eep² 09:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean the article is up for deletion, not our project. This is one of the most active projects I know ofLiPollis 12:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, sorry for the miswording; I added "article". Thanks. -Eep² 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Michael Tsarion]] 

message: There's a "bit of disagreement" over whether Megalith comes under Project Paranormal's jurisdiction. Consensus is needed. Please make your feelings known  here.
perfectblue 08:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus needed 

message: It this wikiproject listed in any of those sections? i could not find it (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been officially classed under 'philosophy and religion'. --InShaneee 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory]] 

message: shouldnt these templates be protected using some form of sprotect given the number of articles they are used on? if some nonregistered user came in and edited one of them, lots of pages using those templates may be damaged (houston we got a problem, if you catch my drift hehe) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *these are high priority templates though given the number of articles that use them, just a thought (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 15:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template protection 

message: just found this article, maybe of some interest (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 15:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fairy Mounds]] 

message: ok someone just came around and asked that this article be deleted... the old version of the article was written by someone else and lacked sources so I went ahead and re-wrote the article and added great references (i mean come on who would like that time magazine and scientific america reference!) ... so anways what do you all think we can do about? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 20:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They used , which isn't a valid speedy reason as the old deletion was a speedy.   is only for articles deleted by AFD.  I've removed the speedy and your .  If they want it deleted they can send it to AFD, but I think it stands a good chance of survival as it's quite a good stub.  ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Teslascope]] deleteion? 

message: well i created and have been really updating this article, problem is someone other does not agree that some of these topics should be listed in that article, so I have gone ahead and provided for those questionable topics they have removed but I put back into the article... what is everyone elses take in the matter and any suggestions on how we can solve this? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Topics in ufology]] 

message: Why is the topic of Megaliths not covered in paranormal interest? Pjacobi removed it with the (not paranormal) edit.
J. D. Redding 17:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isn't asking dumb rhetoric questions not a bannable offense? --Pjacobi 17:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably for the same reasons why making ad hominem is. We observe WP:CIVILITY here, which means WP:NPA - perfectblue 17:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Since there isn't much around suggesting that evolution is the result of ghosts and ghouls, I take it that you are referring to creationism and ID. Both faith issue which project paranormal doesn't really deal with (We don't usually deal with anything involving religious doctrine or scriptures). However, if you're referring to the Distant Origin principle (that human evolution was started by aliens), then I think that we already cover that. It's mentioned on several pages about contactees and UFO cults. Feel free to add our tag to the evolution page if you like, but it's up to you to defend your edit to the people already there. Personally, I don't think that the religious people or the biologists would take kindly to suggestions that the boogie man passes the notability criteria for that page. - perfectblue 07:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: WikiProjects do not "claim" articles, they maintain lists of articles that the colloborators of the WikiProject are interested in, and tag them accordingly. If the editors of WikiProject Paranormal consider megaliths (or evolution, or whatever) to be a topic of interest to the Project, who is to say "no, you're not allowed to be interested in that"?? --Stormie 01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a rule saying that it has to be directly related, in order to be under the scope of a project, unless I am mistaken. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Best to review it in the context of WP:PROJGUIDE Shot info 04:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it says "Many articles will be tagged by more than one WikiProject." Thanks for showing me that (: Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the evolution article. That could probably be tagged too. Not least because DNA is regarded by some (even it's discoverer I believe) as the ultimate oopart. Not to mention the fact that it has recently been discovered that the 97% (or whatever it is) of DNA that is referred to as "junk DNA" contains chemical "sequences" arranged in patterns and frequencies that are otherwise only found in human languages. That is, it is found to correspond with Zipf's law!Davkal 09:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I wish you well finding a WP:V for that that won't be instantly rejected by the crew at Evolution on WP:RS grounds. Honestly, I find pro-evolution people can often be as much true-believers as as the Creationists. I'm not a fanatic by any means, but the way that they simply dismiss certain things or make certain leaps scares me. You'd have to pay me before I'd edit that article with any of this. - perfectblue 10:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually perfectblue the systamatic mobbing of paranormal articles by editors objecting to th term would fall under Pseudoskepticism.  Rational Skeptics tend to believe that it is NOT their job to supress belief in and articles about beliefs in spirtiual, religious, mystical or esoteric subjects.  These same folks are mobbing the page on psuedoskepticism itself to try and get it deleted or merged into another article to take the bite of of criticism of pseudoskeptics from within the skeptical community itself.  As an anthropologist, I and others in my field have written about the dogmas within extreme skepticism and how that end of the movement has taken on all the trappings of a religion.  There are "sacred texts", "gurus" and even "apostate" skeptics who are maligned for advocating a more respecftful tone towards people's religious beliefs.  Skepticism functions best when it seeks to provide alternative real world explanations, not when it seeks to destory and supress all other beliefs and explanations. Penn & Teller had great fun last night ridiculing people who believe in spirit possession.  Some of their attacks were founded in science but they quickly veered off into viscious-land as they often do when covering religion because they honestly believe that only chumps would believe in God.  Ask them!  They'll be happy to tell you why theists are inferior, stupid and worthy of their contempt.  it's hard to watch simply becuase it serves no real world purpose. They didn't disavow a single person of any belief, they merely preached to their insider choir and had fun calling people "A-holes", their favorite thing to do.  Now I love Penn & Teller's show.  It's entertaining.  However, when it veers off into contemptious hatered for anyone not as enlightened as they are, it makes me squirm . I mention this because their attitude is mirrors that of a number of activists systematically running through all the paranormal tagged pages and challeneging first the project tag  and if that doesn't prevail, then the move on to sources.  If that fails, then they draw members of this project into edit wars or personal insult exchanges.  Sounds an awful lot like the religious wars on wikipedia, eh?LiPollis 15:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Megalith]] 

message: Just a note, this has been removed several times by  User:ScienceApologist removed the project note @ top ] here @ Talk:Megalith. J. D. Redding 00:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Megalith]] 

message: Someone may find it interesting, the RfA @ Paranormal and Pjacobi statement @ 18:51 on 21 April 2007. J. D. Redding 00:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations? 

message: I think this should be part of the Paranormal WikiProject since The Granada Forum hosts many speakers in the paranormal community. Please consider giving your thoughts about the article's inclusion in Wikipedia on its talk page. Thanks. -Eep² 21:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Granada Forum]]: another article in danger of deleting 

message: An Arbitration case opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. 
Please look at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. 
Please look at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop.
J. D. Redding 01:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've expanded my observations and judgement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. I already stated it there, but will further clarify, that I'm neither worried by the existence of this project per se, nor by all participants, but only by an abuse by some project members. --Pjacobi 12:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with your analysis Pjacobi. This project was not always so strident in its advocacy. There were times in the past when it strove toward increasing coverage of the paranormal (an admirable goal that leaves the whole question of neutrality up to the editors at the individual pages). I think that the reappearance of User:Reddi at this project is particularly disturbing. He obviously sees this place as the last best hope for continuing to push a pseudoscientific perspective at Wikipedia. I hope that concerned members do not let this happen. --ScienceApologist 14:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your strong-arm tactics have sure done a good job of driving well-meaning contributers out of this project. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example? --ScienceApologist 22:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter... me pointing it out isn't going to make a difference either way.  You are already convinced I'm just some asshole who doesn't know what I'm talking about. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All of you, take this to the Arbitration page. And anyway, this Arb isn't about this project, it's about a user's conduct, and I, for one, will not watch this degenerate into some sort of inter-project mudslinging match. Limit your comments to the matter at hand, and make them in the proper forum. --InShaneee 04:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be turning into a debate about this project.  My own user conduct can only be dealt with in that context (unless I'm let off completely).  So you may be right, but don't be sure it won't have influence on the whole project. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal]] 

message: I just put the CryptoZoology and Paranormal project tags on this article since it is listed as a Cryptid on the list of cryptids. Interested porject members should take a look.  There's some good infomation a National Geographic article from 2003 which is listed in the external link section.  Here's a link to the article for your convenience. Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps or New Species?  The article could use some cleaning up and referencing.LiPollis 11:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bili Ape]] 

message: OK, Paul Shockley was speedily deleted after I first created it but is now at User:Eep²/Paul Shockley while I research it. It's getting really interesting with ties to Bob Dobbs (Church of the SubGenius) and Carla Rueckert (affiliated with David Wilcock). If anyone else would like to contribute before I recreate it (probably under "Cosmic Awareness" since that's what seems to link everything), go for it. Not to take attention away from the Cathy O'Brien deletion nomination or anything, however; I just wanted to give a heads-up to another article coming down the pike... -Eep² 15:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Shockley, Cosmic Awareness et al 

message: Check Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_30#.5B.5BBob_Dobbs.5D.5D for this article's review. He has ties to Paul Shockley, David Worcester, Ralph Duby, and many others. Even if his claims are false, his notability is still there, in my opinion. -Eep² 03:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bob Dobbs]] deletion review 

message: *well I wanted to nominate George Adamski as a Wikipedia:Good articles, so I have been cleaning the article up these past few days.  I have done my best, and now I was hoping those interested would help clean up as necessary also so we can get it passed as a good article (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 15:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[George Adamski]] for [[Wikipedia:Good articles]] nomination 

message: I've seen it spelt "Pleiadian" quite a bit. Will add a redirect or something.
perfectblue 08:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: Andromedans (extraterrestrial), just started this article plus some references, some maybe interested in it (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 23:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be good to add what other channelled entities say about these purported extraterrestrials, if channelling is considered canon/valid. For example, Cosmic Awareness (work in-progress) has mentioned the Pleiadians, Andromedans, Sirians, Vegans (no, not the extreme vegetarian kind), Lyrians, Arcturians, reptilians/reptoids, etc. Do a search on its newsletter's master index (Revelations of Awareness; ROA) for more info. Also, Galactic Overview from various ROA newsletters. -Eep² 05:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Andromedans (extraterrestrial)]] 

message: well there is an issue with "further reading" and the usage of Template:WikiProject Paranormal in the talk page, any comments on the talk page on this would be wonderful (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 21:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it seems to be the word paranormal that raises a stink wherever it goes. It really does invoke an image of ouija boards and suchlike. forteana would be much better, IMO. Totnesmartin 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Teslascope]] 

message: *well it has been nominated for deletion, I figured if anyone wanted to give their two cents that would be great Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_alleged_contactees (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 13:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of alleged contactees]] 

message: Same thing here, they want to delete it, give your two cents on it if you want Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_alleged_UFO-related_government_personnel (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of alleged UFO-related government personnel]] 

message: And now Peter Beter (who has links to Cosmic Awareness (in-progress), Bob Dobbs (trying to get it restored), and who has influenced prominent conspiracy theorists of today via his mentioning of robotoids (of who David Icke is a proponent of), is up for deletion nomination. Sheesh. The guy gets Fort Knox opened and some idiots don't think he's notable enough! What's it freakin' take to be notable in Wikipedia?? Sheesh... Please comment on it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Beter. -Eep² 10:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it seems a lot of people just gloss/skim over information without really trying to understand all the connections between people, events, and places. Few people seem to be willing to actually do research. Aude made a valiant attempt but still fell short (too left-brain or something). -Eep² 11:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have stated in many a delete nom - there is a group who honestly feels that deleting any and all of wikipedias articles on what they deem "Fringe" subjects is a good and admirable thing.  They seem to feel that merely having the article will promote belief in the subject.  Here at this project we have seen a noticeable upswing in such AFDs.  It is not sufficient to way in with a "Keep" vote.  WE most demand specifics from those who say: Delete as non-notable.  Ask them why they feel that way and how did they determine this?  it is clear that many delete voters don't even read the articles.  I'm all for deleting nonsense articles but when it comes to people nominating articles for deletion in order to advance a particular agenda, be it Materialism, extreme skepticism, atheism etc. it's not helpful.  This type of thing would not be permitted if Christians went around nominating for deletion other minor religion articles so why is it permitted with paranormal articles? LiPollis 17:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: From my own personal experience I can tell you that one of the oldest "mind control" tricks that communist governments use to keep their populations in line is to prevent the discussion of any topic that falls outside their ideology in the hope that people will either be so ignorant of the topic that they simply presume that whatever the government says about it is correct (they don't know that there is other discourse or views to be had), other they start to believe that they are the only person in the world who thinks about that topic and they keep silent for fear of ridicule of sanction, or simply because they believe that nobody else will agree with their ideas. - perfectblue 19:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This principle is extremely used in regards to any actual academic discussion of the reality of unidentified intelligently-controlled objects of whatever sort on our planet.  Richard M. Dolan wrote a book on that, actually. --Chr.K. 08:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Peter Beter]] deletion nomination 

message: Well, seems the powers that be are trying to get me blocked from Wikipedia, and people like User:Radiant keep reverting my comments on vote pages (and also removed the vote symbols I put on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal page. I hate this kind of oppression. I know I haven't been editing paranormal-related articles very long, but any support at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eep would be appreciated. Thanks... -Eep² 06:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the Wikinquisition is biased and will censor honest contributors. I don't have a stable access .. but I will try to look around and I will add my opinion when I can. J. D. Redding 23:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not the appropriate venue for this discussion. --InShaneee 15:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sheesh 

message: The Cottingley Fairies section has been the "Project Collaboration" (former, true enough) for going on half a year now. We need something new, Now. --Chr.K. 08:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. However, there's been little support for the Collab effort since it was voted in. I'm probably just going to mark the Collab page as 'temporarily inactive' if there's no real activity at the end of this month. --InShaneee 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  COLLABORATE! 

message: *can we subcategorize this in the :Category:UFOs so its easy to access for those who want to know which stub to use for UFO articles but are not sure which stub template to use?  I tried categorizing it before but it got reverted (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 13:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, :category:UFOs is already under :category:paranormal and you might be able to get away with mentioning the paranormal stub in :category:UFOs, but that category has other parent categories that the template could be stubbed under (but I can't find any other stubs categorized in those parent categories). -Eep² 14:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:Paranormal-stub]] 

message: At 08:02 on 10 May 2007, ScienceApologist redirected the Paraphysics article with the comment "you've got to be kidding me." Please Watch this page. J. D. Redding 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion on the redirect can be had at Talk:Paraphysics. --ScienceApologist 15:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do not do this unilaterally. Please let the discussion take place on the talk page. Or alternatively place a  and  tag on the pages. J. D. Redding 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see you offering any discussion points. Pretending to have a discussion is not an excuse for reverting.--ScienceApologist 15:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You will note that there have not been 4 reverts. --ScienceApologist 15:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I count three reverts.  I don't see how the initial redirection would count as a revert, what do you count as the fourth?  AfD may be an option for this article.  Which version is the 8:02 a revert to?  --Minderbinder 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  revert to a redirect and three to a keep the redirect. J. D. Redding 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first edit is not a revert. --ScienceApologist 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  if he want to move the article to the place he redirected .. he should put in a mergeto and a mergefrom tag on the appropriate pages. J. D. Redding 15:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is only appropriate when there is content worth keeping. The content was all in the form of weak definitional constraints: not encyclopedic. This was pointed out on the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a revert to a redirect, which earlier version of the page was a redirect?  If there isn't one, it wasn't a revert.  --Minderbinder 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "When there is content worth keeping." This is what is known in friendly circles as a BS line. --Chr.K. 12:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't bring issues such as disruptive editing, edit warring, and so on, here.  Go first to the user's talk page, then seek an administrator, preferably on Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). --Tony Sidaway 16:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed... this project is not part of the WP:DR process. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paraphysics]] 

message: I will be notifying someone about this. J. D. Redding
:You will note that there have not been 4 reverts. --ScienceApologist 15:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I count three reverts.  I don't see how the initial redirection would count as a revert, what do you count as the fourth?  AfD may be an option for this article.  Which version is the 8:02 a revert to?  --Minderbinder 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  revert to a redirect and three to a keep the redirect. J. D. Redding 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first edit is not a revert. --ScienceApologist 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  if he want to move the article to the place he redirected .. he should put in a mergeto and a mergefrom tag on the appropriate pages. J. D. Redding 15:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is only appropriate when there is content worth keeping. The content was all in the form of weak definitional constraints: not encyclopedic. This was pointed out on the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a revert to a redirect, which earlier version of the page was a redirect?  If there isn't one, it wasn't a revert.  --Minderbinder 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "When there is content worth keeping." This is what is known in friendly circles as a BS line. --Chr.K. 12:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't bring issues such as disruptive editing, edit warring, and so on, here.  Go first to the user's talk page, then seek an administrator, preferably on Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). --Tony Sidaway 16:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed... this project is not part of the WP:DR process. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ScienceApologist 4th revert and Non-Cooperation : [[paraphysics]]

message: The "skeptics", and I use that term loosely, seem to be interested in certain articles. Just a note. J. D. Redding 22:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...As are we. Let's not turn this into a war. --InShaneee 15:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are concerned, simply add those articles to your watchlist.  The list can be helpful if you look at it that way.  Also, the articles listed do need watching over from both projects.  incidentally, I am a member of both projects as are a number of members here.LiPollis 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:RationalSkepticismTasks]] 

message: I'd like to put in a request for a custom bot that can watch pages with our tag and automatically notify us if they are put up for Afd so that we don't have to do it manually any more. Does anybody know of a good bot-developer whom could build it for us?
perfectblue 08:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a definite need for these as our tagged articles seem to be singled out for deletion in as loosely organized manner.  By the time we figure it out, a number of deletionists have weighed in citing wikipolicy but without specifics as to how the article violates them.  WE then have to prove a negative, that the article DOESN'T violate the cited policies.  It would be better if we could be there at the beginning of the debate for several reasons, not the least of which is so we may see if there is an unfair pattern in the nominations.LiPollis 01:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD Bot 

message: The word "Wikinquisition" can describe the negative actions associated with the inquisition of various RfCs and other judgment of "heresy" or "pseudoscience" by the powers that be. It could address points made by Robert Anton Wilson's book The New Inquisition, also. :Template:Essay could be put at the top of it. It can go along with the other Wikipedia essays ... any thought?
J. D. Redding 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to invent new terms.  Within skepticism itself, there already exists a suitable term for overzealous applicagtion of skepticism to the point of dogma, it is Pseudoskepticism.  Naturally, pseudoskeptics or skeptics acting in a pseudoskeptical manner will not usually see themselves as being or doing such.  People like that are ideologues.  Just let it go and concentrtate on imporving articles and providing good references.  That is the best way to combat deletionists.  If a topic is truly notable, make sure it is shown to be just that.LiPollis 11:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiEssay? [[Wikipedia:Wikinquisition|Wikinquisition]] 

message: I finally got around to doing something I've wanted to do for a long time: I have recently expanded this article substantially but I suck at the new citation format.  I don't know why I just don't get it, but I don't.  I used a slightly older inline cite format so the info is all there.  I just need an editor who is not citation-challenged as I am to come along after me and maybe spiff them up a bit.  My goal is to get something from the article listed on the front page under DYK. Articles that have been recently substantially expanded are eligible.  I know it's a short article but I feel it's pretty interesting.  Any suggestions as to which fact should be nominated? LiPollis 11:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hands Resist Him]] the eBay Haunted Painting 

message: * Well I was looking at this article, and I thought maybe we could enforce a uniform layout, a table maybe where all the sightings are listed cleanly because I found it hard to read (could just be me though) ... what do you'all think (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 17:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good, it's similar to the Cryptids list. The only thing it needs is a column for explanation (eg Still unexplained or hoax or Swamp gas reflecting cabbage leaves off Venus, etc), and perhaps a Hynek-style classification, although that might have too much stuff crammed into each row. Any other opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 18:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually you're right - and there could be more than one explanation on offer, which would really clutter up the table. Totnesmartin 22:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: started - i have started the table list in the article, if anyone wants to help out that would be great (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of UFO sightings]] 

message: I have recently revised this article to include the Catholic Church's findings (or lack thereof) regarding the alleged miracles said to have happened in her home or as a result of prayer to her.  I have not tagged the article as part of our project out of concern that such an action might be met with hostility due to her recent death.  However, it really is a paranormal article. She was alleged to have manifested stigmata,  "Miracle oil" was said to seep from the walls in her room and healings were attributed to her acting as a victim soul.  I'd welcome input from other editors.  Her funeral is tomorrow and it is likely that a push for sainthood will start soon.LiPollis 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I wouldn't tag this as being part of our project. We should draw a line between faith issues and the paranormal as they draw their founding tenets from different sources. - perfectblue 06:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree which is why I have not tagged the article.  I have however, recently sourced as much of it as I can and will continue to source it.  Her mother and followers have asserted all sorts of paranormal activity during her lifetime and are now promoting her for sainthood.  I found the subject interesting because the claims were thoroughly investigated by both skeptics (CSICOP) and the Catholic Church with both finding the claims to be without merit.  I am trying to be respectful of Audrey and her family and still provide the facts.  I'll say one thing - that child never had a bedsore which is remarkable in and of itself.  Clearly her family loved her deeply.  It will be interesting to see if any miracles are attributed to audrey's "intercession" now that she has passed away.LiPollis 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Audrey Santo]] 

message: There has been some recent news about Oliver for those interested.  A very sad power struggle has been fought between PETA and another animal rights group called Friends of Animals over control of the sanctuary where he lives called Primarily Primates.  It has been resolved in favor of the Friends of Animals side of things.  An article was created on Primarily Primates seemingly by one of the parties to the dispute and it contains a lot of nasty and unsourced allegations against the former director, Wally Swett.  The news articles I cited in my update of the article do bear out some of those criticisms but not all of them.  As some of you know, I worked as an Anthropologist for a museum in the 1980s.  I had some contact with primate sanctuaries then. My curiosity got the better of me and I called the newly re-opened Primarily Primates to find out how Oliver is doing.  He is still alive and having his quarters cleaned.  Under the 2 former administrations, his care had deteriorated to little more than being caged and fed.  I cannot add that to the article since it is Original Research,  I mention it because I know some of our members have a strong interest in Oliver.  I would appreciate any help any project members can give me in cleaning up the articles on Oliver and Primarily Primates.  The Humanzee article is watched over by another editor.  What is sad is that Primarily Primates had a been a model sanctuary for many years, falling on hard times due to Wally Swett's apparent battles with personal demons. If one were to read the article now, the impression would be that the place was a cesspool and pure hell for retired apes since the day its doors opened.  I realize that its not a part of this project but Oliver is and maybe there are other editors with an interest who may assist me. Thanks!LiPollis 18:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oliver (chimpanzee)]] (the alleged [[Humanzee]]) 

message: (I use netscape FYI.)  When I see this page, the to do list significantly overlaps the box next to it.LiPollis 01:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else see these boxes as overlapping?  It's very annoying and makes it hard to read the to Do list.LiPollis 15:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with overlap of to do list 

message: *Rosemary Brown (spiritualist) - spiritualism is a bona fide religion.   However, she claims to have channeled new musical compositions from dead composers.  Does she fall under our project?
*Ramtha - a channeled entity.  Belief in him seems to have evolved into a new religious movement.  So, does "he" fall under our project or no?
I'd rather gather input than simply put the tags on.  These two articles border on religion.  Its kinda like Audrey Santo.  I don't mind working on them.  I just don't want to start any unecessary talk page arguments about our project involvement.  So far no project has claimed Ramtha.LiPollis 18:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe channelled entities (and channellers) fall under this project, but I can see them falling under Wikipedia: WikiProject Occult, Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spirituality, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views (I wonder when Wikipedia: WikiProject New Age will be created) too. There are WAY too many overlapping wikiprojects... -Eep² 05:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I can see where they all do.  I was just hoping that more members would offer some comment before I put our tag on them.  incidentally, there is an accusation on its talk page that the article Rosemary Brown (spiritualist) is plagerized from Reader's Digest but the person making the claim didn't provide a link.  If that's true than maybe a rewrite is in order.  It also has no references.  If you have time, this might be right up your alley perfectblue, given your track record of rescueing badly sourced articles from oblivion!  The Indigo kids thing is a cultural phenomenon in its early stages. Even Jenny McCarthy has jumped on the bandwagon saying her autistic child is an indigo at her website Indigomoms.com (which is now being restructured - it was a full fledged website about a month ago).  Southpark even had a swipe at Indigo kids with their Ginger Kids episode.  I feel we ought to take an interest in these articles before thery get too bogged down in dogma.  As the article stands, it is fairly one-sided and could use some input from skeptics.  If anyone wants to hop over there and take a look see,  I'll support any efforts made to try and provide a balanced view of the issue.LiPollis 15:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should these articles be tagged with our project tag? 

message: *this article is being considered for deletion, if anyone can add anything that would be great! (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 13:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems rather bare.  Why is this notable beyoond the photo?  LiPollis 15:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  not sure there is alot of info out there on this ... maybe merge somewhere and redirect till it can grow? J. D. Redding 22:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[August 17, 2006 Nanjing UFO Incident]] 

message: Geez...now Conspiracy Con is nominated for deletion--even after extensive sourcing. Please give your comments/vote. Thanks. -Eερ² (t|c) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of this, I have created UFO convention to expand on what contactee mentions about the, perhaps, 2 oldest UFO conventions. Filling up this page with other UFO/conspiracy-related conventions should give more notability to them in general. -Eερ² (t|c) 04:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Con AfD 

message: See Template_talk:Infobox_Paranormalcreatures. -Єερ² (τ|c) 12:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Paranormalcreatures 

message: Note as there were no objections to removing protoscience from the scope of this project, I have therefore removed them. Note, please, that protoscience is a term used mostly for ideas which presage scientific theories/disciplines. For example, phlogiston theory is often considered a protoscientific form of thermodynamics. I don't think that the scope of the Paranormal WikiProject is to delineate between protoscientific and scientific forms, so the subject was removed. --ScienceApologist 13:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protoscience

message: This discussion has been going on for a while, but I just saw it now. Zagalejo 19:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth mysteries]] 

message: I made a Wikiproject Paranormal user template but haven't figured out how to make visited links not appear black which, to me anyway, disappear in the black background. I tried adding a stylesheet code for visited links but it didn't work. Any ideas? Oh, and I used "user_paranormal" cuz it was free, despite there being a Template:User_Paranormal1 and Template:User_Paranormal3. The one I made is still a bit cartoony for me but it was just a quickie. -Eep² 05:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool template Eep.  I have this from another user:
The code for that would be:
Display Text
Change the "Text" to the title of the article, and "Display Text" to
whatever text you want to display. You must enter both the title of the
page you are linking to and the display text, even if they are the same.
This is equivalent to the code:
study of paranormal phenomena Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I know how to change the font color but I am referring to the visited link color, not the standard font color. Oddly, that seems to work, but it doesn't honor visited link changes. Ah well. Oh and please don't reply on my talk page, which doesn't give any context as to what you're replying to. Thanks. -Eep² 07:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sure- sorry it didn't help.  I didn't really think you'd see it here if I didn't put it on your talk page. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It did help. :P ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 08:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  paranormal user template 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel's Hole. Zagalejo 03:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another AFD 

message: Spring Heeled Jack has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Resurgent insurgent 01:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Spring Heeled Jack]] 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 10:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  yet another AfD: Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book 

message: *very little info and not a single reference in the article, i tried searching for it but no results, it has a warning template that it may get deleted, if anyone wants to help expand on it that would be great ... UFO Day (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 19:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[UFO Day]] 

message: Users interested in maintaining and improving articles that fal under the project might be interested in This. It lists articles with our label that have been listed as needing verification etc and can help us to better target our efforts to improve the quality of coverage of the paranormal.
It would be great if somebody could transclude it onto the main project page so that it will be easy to see where we still have work to do.
perfectblue 15:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Bot 

message: *can we just list the code for the template instead of showing both the code for the template and the actual template itself, it seems to take up alot of space on the main page and I have found that to be very annoying (could just be me though (:OP ) ... i rather just list the code (saves a lot of space) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 20:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the template:- just needs to not be used so the whitespace to the left of the sections on the right is removed. I removed it but then the tasklist moves next to the member infoboxes (on 1440x900 resolution and "simple" skin anyway), which isn't that bad but there must be a way to force just that section to not be overlapped without having to wait until the end of the right-side sections. I tried other "clear" templates but no luck. OK, I used a nested table and it seems to work now. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: One thing you can take advantage of are collapsable sections. I'd recommend using them for the to-do list, infobox templates, and I'm trying to find a sortable+collabsable table for the deletion nominations. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 21:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: *current debate over whether or not a "non-credit course at a community college" count as notable data to use in this article ... any insight on the talk page on your opinion would be great! (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 02:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Exopolitics#Education]] 

message: *someone just rewrote the entire article and I undid their revisions, please share your insight in the talk page, this is a very important article (at least i think so hehe) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 01:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Teslascope#Article_rewrite]] 

message: Found this :Image:Nuvola apps konquest.png .. thought I'd post it here. J. D. Redding 04:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image for use 

message: *i think we should nominate Dropa as the next article to clean up, has potential from what I can tell Nima Baghaei 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope you don't mind me putting your name on your comment, Nima. Anyway, I second this proposal. The article was awful when I came across it months ago, and it still is now. Totnesmartin 09:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  collaboration of the month 

message: They just keep a comin'.  Please look at the artilce and consider weighing in with an opinion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel's Hole The nomination asserts that it is unsourced.  it IS sourced to the best of our abilities.  SInce the sources are all radio shows and a few newspaper articles, we did the best we could.  All other references are from rabid hole-searchers message boards which we can't cite. - LiPollis 18:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This AfD was mentioned a couple days ago a few entries up, actually, but thanks anyway. :) ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankfully it survived but in a greatly truncated form.  Still, a small and well-sourced article is better tha no article at all, right?LiPollis 10:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to some of us; if this were international politics, nuclear war would've been unleashed long ago. --Chr.K. 13:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd compare the treatment of the paranormal around here to ethnic cleansing and Witch trials, but anything that I said would likely be deleted under WP:something that wasn't originally intended for this purpose but is not being used to stifle the fact that belief exists regardless of science. - perfectblue 20:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a mainstream publication.  As such it will never be a good source for the paranormal.  Thats neither bad nor good... it's just how it is. I've long ago accepted it... ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 23:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I for one don't accept that the mainstream can't cover the paranormal. While there might be disputes over the existence of phenomona, it is undeniable that unscientific phenomona have been defined in terms of terminology, that they are believed enough to make them notable, and that there has been research into them (even if it is sometimes flawed). All of these things are perfectly eligible for inclusion. To deny them because science doesn't believe them is tantamount to going into an art gallery and destroying all of the impressionist paintings because they aren't photographic representations. - perfectblue 12:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And another AfD:  [[Mel's Hole]] 

message: Hi!  Perfectblue asked me to run the aforementioned project page list, and the bot's been running it daily.  First, I'd like to know if anyone has found it useful?  Should I keep it in my bot list?  Second, if the answer is "yes", I'd like to move it to a project page, say Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/To do from bot or something like that.  Since I don't watch this page, would someone reply on my talk page?  Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Bot (redux) 

message: What I would call reasonable doubt has been cast over whether electrogravitics should be under the purview of WP:PARA. Please study the article, and make your assessement, so a classification can be assigned, or the article culled from the list. --Chr.K. 06:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrogravitics/paranormal debate 

message: *any input would be nice Talk:Alien_spacecraft#merging List of alleged UFO-related vehicles -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 05:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of alleged UFO-related vehicles]] merge with [[Alien spacecraft]] 

message: is a talk page about an article that apparently does not exist. If it can proven that the item in question does, then the image needs to be connected to; if it no longer exists, discussion for whether the talk page should be likewise eliminated, to be held here. --Chr.K. 08:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the logs, it was deleted since it exists on . ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 10:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, the image is now on commons. - perfectblue 10:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There then needs to be some sort of link across to the image itself, so that it can be given classification.  Without identifying what's there to begin with, such is impossible. --Chr.K. 14:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detatched talk pages 

message: I think that one of the parameters for the scope of this project should be reconsidered.  I found that the article for the Kensington Runestone has the tag for this project, and I really don't think it could be classified as paranormal.  However, under the stated guidelines, it could fit in this category on the basis that it is beyond what is considered to be scientifically plausible (see below).
"Paranormal phenomena
        * An umbrella term used to describe a wide variety of reported anomalous phenomena, including any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed possible/plausible under current scientific understanding."  I think the "plausibility" criterion should be taken out.  Being implausible doesn't make something impossible, and I really think that only phenomena that are impossible under the current understanding of scientific principles should be allowed here (ruling out the Kensington stone).--Tabun1015 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, our scope has always been a little hazy.  Personally, I don't see anything paranormal about the Kensington Runestone. Zagalejo 01:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Yeah, our scope has always been a little hazy..." I will second that assessment. --Chr.K. 20:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that there are any claims of it having paranormal powers, and in any case there are none in the article, so I removed the tag for it.--Tabun1015 04:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of WikiProject Paranormal 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp. Zagalejo 19:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just upgraded it from Stub to Start on both the Paranormal and Cryptozoology rating scales, due to the recent editorial editions; not only does it remain, it moves up on the proverbial list. An outright success. --Chr.K. 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp]] AFD'd 

message: *i am not sure how to use Bots in wikipedia, but maybe someone here does ... what i wanted to do was use any bots to go through the :Category:UFOs and clean up all the articles there and all the articles in its subcategories automatically ... i figure they need a good cleaning -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 17:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "Clean up"? What exactly is it you want to do? - perfectblue 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: maybe you could find a bot that does all that, go to its creator (should be linked on the bot's userpage) and ask them to set one up for you - perhaps just ordering it to sweep particular categories. They'd probably be pleased that someone likes their bot! Totnesmartin 19:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Do tell us if you do! Totnesmartin 21:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bots