Talk:James Randi/Archive 2

message: The article contains a link to James Randi Educational Foundation, but that just redirects back to this article.  So either it needs to be unlinked, or there needs to be at least a stub at James Randi Educational Foundation.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. How's it look now? -- Krash (Talk) 19:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Bubba73 (talk), 17:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JREF link 

message: A paragraph about Sylvia Browne was added and then deleted.  Randi talks about this here.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is relevant; Sylvia Brown may have said he should "check" his "left ventricle," but as he says there, he has a "public record as having had heart attacks and an angioplasty", and a check of said ventricle turned up nothing. We don't even know if his left ventricle had anything to do with his heart surgery.--Prosfilaes 05:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sylvia Browne and Randi's heart 

message: There are two mentions of an award received in 1986. One instance states that it as  the "MacArthur Foundation Genius award" and in another instance it is referred as "MacArthur Foundation  fellowship" award. Which one is it? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name is the "MacArthur Foundation fellowship".  It is unofficially called the "MacArthur Foundation Genius award".  That could be clarified.   Bubba73 (talk), 20:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which award? 

message: Part of Randi's fame in the scientific skeptic community:  http://www.randi.org/jr/090503.html
There are many references.  -Wfaxon 13:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nature" and Dr. Jacques Benveniste (1988) 

message: This article needs to be expanded to include elements of Randi's personal life such as who his parents were, his heritage, etc. Do any of you know if Randi was ever married?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.79.39.127 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 5 June 2006
I don't know, but he seems like a homo to me.
:Oh, grow up, you anonymous homophobe you. RobertAustin 10:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with above.   I have not heard anything to the effect of Mr. Randi being homosexual, or at least not seriously.   It's possible, but I do not see how that changes anything or would reflect on his work.   Mr. Randi is free to speak of his personal life, but I find it distasteful to speculate about anyone's private life, especially when it does not relate directly to his public or professional life.    That having been said, adding the location where he was raised, names of parents and such may be worthwhile, if only for general biographical reference.  DrBuzz0 02:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Life 

message: The article says "that he somehow "controls" the tests,..." Is this being confused with a controlled experiment?  In doing scientific tests/experiments, or in a statistical test, a "controlled" test means that you have controlled (kept constant) all variables except the one that you are testing, so any results must be to that variable instead of another one.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the claim is that he is controlling the experiments by surreptious means to prevent the testers from succeeding. JoshuaZ 01:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  controlled test? 

message: He's agreed to do a five minute opinion piece on the show The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Podcast each week.  This week he talked about exorcisms.  click here.  --Havermayer 01:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  He's on the podcast "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe" now.   

message: I see that the quote & citation I added on "I always have an out... I'm right" has been removed
Just to clarify: I copied the reference from the James Randi Educational Foundation page because it had a  tag attached to it. The Foundation article is much better at this, explaining that "I always have an out" was quoted in the citation, and that "...I'm right" was Randi's completion of the quote, published in another place, not in the cited article. But I thought the whole story was too long to copy over, so I just put in that one citation. It would be better to cite the article where '...I'm right' was included - or to delete the entire quote and let people read the other article. --Alvestrand 08:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem is trying to find a reliable source for Randi's stated full version, which as far as I've seen, only occurs in an email and a JREF Forum post, neither of which are reliable by Wikipedia standards. If I recall correctly, Bubba73 was hoping to get Randi to include some mention in Swift, which is WP-reliable, but no luck so far. (I can imagine Randi not feeling this issue, which must seem like a silly technicality to outsiders, to be a high priority with all the other stuff he has to talk about on Swift.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One interesting network phenomenon: If you search for that phrase on Google, you're inundated with hits, but it turns out that most of them are quotes from the Wikipedia articles. So much for fame... --Alvestrand 08:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Note: After scanning WP:RS#Using online and self-published sources, I am still of the opinion that linking to the email & JREF forum postings is a service to the community. Their proven reliability is, of course, not the best, but their existence is a fact. --Alvestrand 09:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I always have an out" quote 

message: "Randi has gone on to write several books criticizing beliefs and claims regarding the paranormal. He has also been instrumental in exposing frauds and charlatans who exploit this field for personal gain. In one example, his Project Alpha hoax, Randi revealed that he had been able to orchestrate a years-long compromise of a privately-funded psychic research experiment. The hoax became a scandal and demonstrated the shortcomings of many paranormal research projects at the university level. Some said that the hoax was unethical, while others claimed his actions were a legitimate exercise in debunking poor research techniques."
Could someone reword this paragraph as I don't really understand what happened as it stands at the moment, but I'd like to.  In what way did he orchestrate it/compromise the experiment? Merkinsmum 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the details, but Randi basically sent agents into the experiment, after instructing them how to fake 'psychic' abilities.  He did this for several years without any of them being caught and then revealed what he had done. Michaelbusch 17:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We happen to have a good article on this at Project Alpha. Michaelbusch 21:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And there's a link to it in the text of the article.  Should it also be in the See also section to make it stand out better?  Bubba73 (talk), 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Project Alpha Hoax

message: During my latest pass at formatting sources, I replaced with  tags several citations of pages from someone's personal Mindspring account. Personal web pages are not reliable sources. I also deleted a bare Usenet post from Google Groups. Usenet can be considered a reliable source for factual statements about the posts themselves, but Usenet has no editorial board or anyone taking responsibility for the accuracy of the information in the post, including who the authors are. The Usenet posts hosted by randi.org can be considered vetted by JREF, especially when they claim to be from James Randi. However, it would be much better to have a print publication for this information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper sourcing 

message: On the Geller website there is reference to an extarordinary series of letters James Randi is supposed to have sent Geller. Does anyone know anything about this ? Thank you Robert2957 22:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, please don't SHOUT. It's considered rude, and as it is frequently used by vandals and other disruptions, carries a sometimes unfair association with bad-faith editing, which can have the opposite effect of its intent. Headings are already bold and don't need capitalizing for emphasis. On to the question… When I tried your URL, I got a page that began with "URI GELLER'S / LIFE SIGNS / Which life sign are you?", and seemed not to contain any discernable reference to any letters between Randi and Geller. (It was somewhat hard to sift through the very long and confusing page, although it might have been made more chaotic by the failure of a Java applet to run properly.) In any case, it doesn't seem to match the expectation of a URL that ends with "books/magician-or-mystic/chapter13.htm". Could you provide another URL, or quote some material verbatim from the page, so we can try to find it elsewhere? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rand's Letters To Geller ? 

message: "The original edition contained a number of factual errors, including the claim that Geller had been convicted of fraud in a criminal trial, and misstatements about whether there was a clear view of the window in the room where Geller did his work, a place Randi had never been to.Randi's critics claim these errors are deliberate and that they undermine Randi's credibility.  Several publications that reprinted Randi's allegations were successfully sued by Geller, or they settled with him. Randi subsequently produced a revised edition of the book, called The Truth About Uri Geller."
How much of this is true?  When citations are found it'll be put back on the main page.  --Havermayer 07:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just got the book today.  It is my bedtime, so I'll briefly say that the book has an insert pasted inside the front cover with four corrections.  They have to do with references in the book that Geller was "tried and convicted" in court.  The insert says that Geller was not actually physically in the court, but that legal action was brought against him and a settlement was paid to the plaintiff.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS, the book I got is the revised The Truth About Uri Geller.  It has the inserted sheet with the corrections.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The magic of Uri Geller book: 

message: I've removed a statement (actually two) about Randi working for the "Disinformation Department"; specifically:
: Randi works for the Disinformation Department in the (U.S.)Department of Defense-high level research projects. He started working there in 1973.citation:Reality Hackers Magazine 1988
A magazine title and year are not sufficient for proper sourcing; we need at least the issue, and should also have the article title and/or page number(s). I attempted to get this information, but found that the only semi-notable Reality Hackers magazine seems to have been a 1988-89 title for what eventually became Mondo 2000. Even in its earliest incarnation, that mag began in 1984, so there could not have been a 1973 issue. The Library of Congress doesn't even have a record of any version of this as a periodical, although it does have a book form (currently listed in our Mondo 2000 article). These findings, plus the rather improbable nature of the claim, makes this sound like a hoax. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Fyslee for doing the actual removal. I don't know why, but the edit I did at the same time I posted this message did not "take". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disinformation Department 

message: His bio on his website lists many more awards than the two listed here.  Does someone want to enter more of them?  Bubba73 (talk), 04:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: I'm tempted to remove this sentence "It is not known whether this statement was said in jest."  The source (James Alcock) gives no indication that it might have been in jest.  He talks about the accusor's wife trying to get him to shut up.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like unsourced speculation to me. In any case, it'd be nice to have the page number of this information for easier verification. I plan to grab my library's copy of the book, but if you've got it in front of you, Bubba73, can you add it? And while you're at it, convert the anachronistic ref/note reference to follow the ref/references system that every other citation in this article uses? If not, I'll do it shortly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The part about being in jest is unsourced.  The book and page number are listed using the current ("cite book") form of Harvard referencing, so it isn't anachronistic.   I think it is much better to put the bulk of the info about a book in the references section instead of the text.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS, I emailed the author last night to ask if he thought there was any indication of "jest", but I haven't heard back yet.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm removing the sentence because it seems to be unsourced speculation.  I still haven't heard from the author, but I've reread it carefully, and there is no indication that it might have been in jest.  He uses it as an example of rationalization.  If anyone comes up for a reliable source saying that it was in jest, put it in.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pardon my inappropriate term; I should have said "out of place" when I said "anachronistic" (although one could make an argument for the latter, given the drive to replace the older footnoting with the newer one). I meant to point out that this citation is the only proper reference in the article that does not use ref/references, and there is no good reason for this. Perhaps this is encouraged by the "Footnotes" heading, despite the fact that every "footnote" is actually a work reference, not an explanatory note. They should all be in the same format for intra-article consistency. Yes, there are technical concerns with the currently favored standard, but there are also technical issues with the Harvard referencing formatting as well. Let's stick to the current system unless there is a compelling reason favoring the other. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK.  Harvard referencing is one of the three methods recomended for Wikipedia.  I think it is clearly the best, and I've outlined those reasons at User:Bubba73#Wikipedia.  You can change it if you want to, but it is so much easier on readers and also on editors to use Harvard references.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  using a "cite book", and you are going to reference that book two or more times, and it will reference different pages, how do you do that without duplicating all of the rest of the "cite book" info? Bubba73 (talk), 02:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism sentence 

message: I'm very impressed with the quality of this article, especially given how controversial Randi is.  I'd appreciate advice from regular editors here on how they've resolved disputes.  I'm looking for suggestions that could be helpful in resolving the many ongoing disputes on Stephen_Barrett and related articles.  Thanks and my apologies if this request is disruptive here. --Ronz 04:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one thing to note is that these are both are a "biography of a living person", which is indicated at the top of the talk page. "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous..."  Bubba73 (talk), 04:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. We seem to have difficulty agreeing upon the meaning of "unsourced or poorly sourced", especially in light of the fact that what's especially notable about Barrett is that he publicly criticizes individuals, organizations, and professions. --Ronz 04:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for help from regular editors here

message: I heard that there was a biography of Randi to be printed, somehow related or commissioned by Penn and Teller.  Perhaps written by them.  Does anyone know any details?  Bubba73 (talk), 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Penn and Teller commisioned the book. Someone I know was contacted/interveiwed by a woman author regarding it. Don't know if P&T are involved as the main authors and she as a "with" credit (all the legwork, since they're too busy performing) or if Randi will claim main credit. I think Mr. Randi mentioned it in his Commentary last year, don't as me the date. 5Q5 18:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  biography to be printed? 

message: I suspect the reason we don't have a source for this yet is because it must have just happened a few hours ago on 18 March 2007, the very day an anonymous editor added this note. Randi was the guest speaker at the National Capital Area Skeptics' 20th anniversary meeting Sunday, and I believe they are the folks who give out the Klass Award (or at least they did last year, to Michael Shermer). I suppose we'll need to wait for a press release, their next newsletter, a report in a local paper, or a mention in JREF's Swift column. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: emailed that group asking about it yesterday, but I haven't gotten a reply.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philip J. Klass Award 2007 

message: "Test your ESP potential" is a book by Randi, so it seems to me that it should be listed in the bibliography.  Bubba73 (talk), 12:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well enough.  Randi has a very bad sense of humor. Michaelbusch 16:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. He does not have a bad sense of humour. He doesn't have one, so how can it be bad? Harry Mudd 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: Which parapsychologists have "tried to downplay the Randi challenge using attacks on Randi's character" ?
I removed this, per citation request, but the removal was reverted.  Please can someone find a citation for this generalization, or attribute it to a particular parapsychologist or group of parapsychologists?  Otherwise, it should be deleted. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually reading through this entire section (Randi's Caustic Style) has me asking "Why does this deserve a special mention" especially given that it doesn't even really discuss "Randi's Caustic Style" per se.  As such, I recommend that this section is reworded and integrated into the general article proper (first part into the Challenge, the other into a subsection with a relevant name under "Background".  Martin's point above is valid inasmuch as I cannot find a source that says "parapsychologists attack Randi's character".  Lots of references to "parapsychologists attacking the challenge" but none supporting the particular line.  Perhaps a better sentence under the Challenge heading would be "Parapsychologists and other critics say that Randi has set up the system..."?  Shot info 05:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would work.  We shouldn't say that parapsychologists attack his character or are enemies without saying which ones.  But I think I would not bother to fact tag that they say he has rigged things.  They do, because it would cost more than a million to win the challenge. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They say lots of things ;-) Shot info 02:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  But they can't beat Randi at being mouths. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno about that one :-) Shot info 04:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, should be true.  That's one of Randi's draws- one of the things that makes him so Amazing (: Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Randi's caustic style

message: This Article was showing up as:
James Rnadi - Wikipedia 
On yahoo's search: http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-&p=james%20randi
entry two. 
Why is this? 
User:rose 05:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that the article was vandalised and the search spider then updated. It will probably fix itself soon. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 08:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shows up odd on Yahoo Search (Rnadi not Randi) 

message: :Image:AnEncyclopediaofClaims.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AnEncyclopediaofClaims.jpg

message: I added :Image:James Randi crop.jpg to the page. It was removed by , and I don't really get why. The edit summary was "rm image; no assertion of ownership on image description page to validate claimed CC license". It's tagged as cc-by on Flickr: what more does it need?! --h2g2bob (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the info on the image, and it seemed OK to me.  I know that JeffQ is a fine editor.  Maybe he can explain.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True - I'll ask on his talk page --h2g2bob (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  MAybe it is because "has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or trusted user to confirm that the above license is valid. "  But that takes a few days.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image - huh? 

message: The initial image that was released by Randi himself into the public domain seems to have been erased. Specifically this image here [] was released into the public domain by Randi via E-mail to the original uploader of the image. However the image seems to have been totally erased by the database. Not only that but other free images have been removed from this article. Can someone please elaborate?Wikidudeman (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally belive its been done by critics of Randi and are acts of vandalism. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 08:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the initial image? 

message: :Image:Faithhealers.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image probably shouldn't be used on this page but the image itself should not be deleted because its used to show the cover of the book The Faith Healers () which does come under fair use --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 08:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just E-mail James Randi and he will allow you to use it. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Faithhealers.gif

message: :Image:Secrets of the PsychicsVideo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Secrets of the PsychicsVideo.jpg

message: I was going to replace :Category:Skeptics with one of the more specific sub-categories that are broken down by nationality, but I don't know whether to use :Category:American skeptics or :Category:Canadian skeptics (which doesn't exist at the time of this writing) since Randi was born Canadian but became naturalized as an American citizen.  I'm leaning toward American since that seems to be Randi's own choice (given that he chose to become naturalized) but for the sake of consistency that would mean changing the current Canadian categories to their American counterparts, and I thought I should check here first before doing that.  --Sapphic 23:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would choose American, since that is what he is now.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian or American? 

message: I don't mind the section, it's just that it is badly written, and makes Randi look stupid.  Didn't think anyone would want it. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reach consensus before removing a large chunk of an article

message: This article needs some good improvments to reach GA status. Please help me improve it. Here are some suggestions:
===Criticism of Randi===
The first sentence of this section seems not to be "criticism" but pointless insults. It lacks substance or any explanation as to why or how it's even criticism. Please comment. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence by itself doesn't seem to help the article much.  Also the last sentence in that section about Doyle and Houdini may not be needed.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am against removing red links that may eventually be working.  If that article is ever written then the links automatically become live everywhere.  For instance, the second author of The Oxford Companion to Chess didn't have an article, and over 100 references to him were not linked.  When he got his own article, I had to go and link to him in over 100 places.  It would have saved hours of work if he had been redlinked. Bubba73 (talk), 18:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redlinks in articles are quite ugly. It would be better to just remove them, make sure the pages where they exist are noted and then go through using AWB to add them once the article is created. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  that makes a lot of extra work for editors, in my experience.  In the hours it took me to put links in 100+ articles, I could have been doing something more useful.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I got authorized to use AWB several months ago, but it refuses to run.  Today I downloaded the current version, and when I try to run it, it says "AutoWikiBrowser has encountered a problem and needs to close.  We are sorry for the inconvenience."  I can't even get to the first screen.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For example, there are around 100 unlinked references to The Oxford Companion to Chess, but I have no easy way to create them.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I just don't believe that. When I see redlinks my first thought is to remove them, not create the corresponding article. Do you have any evidence that redlinks increase the likelihood of the article being created or encourage readers to create them? I think it's more of a style issue. Redlinks are simply distracting and are somewhat of a side effect of having no corresponding article which should have never been linked to to begin with. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Redlinks are no more distracting than bluelinks, IMO.  I think you can set the color under Preferences if red bothers you.  And they are so beneficial to editors.  A couple of times I've created articles and all of a sudden there are links to it!  Bubba73 (talk), 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well according to WP:RED, redlinks shouldn't be added unless the creation of the article for them is imminent and is bound to happen anytime. Otherwise they should be removed. If the likelyhood of the article being created soon is slim, then remove the redlinks. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree with that policy, but at least last night I finally got AWB to run.  Now I just have to learn how to use it.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I just created Chess Review and nine links came alive without me having to do anything else!  Bubba73 (talk), 23:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: All of the other books in the bibliography section are by Randi.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's get to GA 

message: The first sentence of this section seems not to be "criticism" but pointless insults. It lacks substance or any explanation as to why or how it's even criticism. Please comment. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence by itself doesn't seem to help the article much.  Also the last sentence in that section about Doyle and Houdini may not be needed.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of Randi

message: Please remove all red links in the article, Especially in the "TV and Film" section. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am against removing red links that may eventually be working.  If that article is ever written then the links automatically become live everywhere.  For instance, the second author of The Oxford Companion to Chess didn't have an article, and over 100 references to him were not linked.  When he got his own article, I had to go and link to him in over 100 places.  It would have saved hours of work if he had been redlinked. Bubba73 (talk), 18:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redlinks in articles are quite ugly. It would be better to just remove them, make sure the pages where they exist are noted and then go through using AWB to add them once the article is created. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  that makes a lot of extra work for editors, in my experience.  In the hours it took me to put links in 100+ articles, I could have been doing something more useful.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I got authorized to use AWB several months ago, but it refuses to run.  Today I downloaded the current version, and when I try to run it, it says "AutoWikiBrowser has encountered a problem and needs to close.  We are sorry for the inconvenience."  I can't even get to the first screen.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For example, there are around 100 unlinked references to The Oxford Companion to Chess, but I have no easy way to create them.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I just don't believe that. When I see redlinks my first thought is to remove them, not create the corresponding article. Do you have any evidence that redlinks increase the likelihood of the article being created or encourage readers to create them? I think it's more of a style issue. Redlinks are simply distracting and are somewhat of a side effect of having no corresponding article which should have never been linked to to begin with. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Redlinks are no more distracting than bluelinks, IMO.  I think you can set the color under Preferences if red bothers you.  And they are so beneficial to editors.  A couple of times I've created articles and all of a sudden there are links to it!  Bubba73 (talk), 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well according to WP:RED, redlinks shouldn't be added unless the creation of the article for them is imminent and is bound to happen anytime. Otherwise they should be removed. If the likelyhood of the article being created soon is slim, then remove the redlinks. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree with that policy, but at least last night I finally got AWB to run.  Now I just have to learn how to use it.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I just created Chess Review and nine links came alive without me having to do anything else!  Bubba73 (talk), 23:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redlinks

message: Is this section books by Randi or about him? If it's by him then please include the rest of them as there are more. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the other books in the bibliography section are by Randi.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Books

message: :Image:MagicworldofRandi.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MagicworldofRandi.JPG

message: In the Criticism of Randi section there is an "Expert needed tag". What does this mean? What sort of expert is needed? Wikidudeman (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw this and was wondering myself. First of all, I'm not sure that somebody shouting from the audience constitutes "criticism". Second, a "criticism" section is surely the last useful way to present critical information. If there is serious criticism of Randi, then it should be included in appropriate sections.  --lquilter 14:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's not even really criticism. I've moved it to the "Career as a magician" section since that's what it really relates to. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Randi, "Expert" needed?