Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop

message: Gah, this page is filling up fast and I don't have the time to read it all. For the record, if I miss something or don't respond to something right away, that doesn't imply that I support or oppose it.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

message: I was wondering if the paranormal enthusiasts participating in this RfArb might consider ceasing to identify the targets of their critiques as a single group called the "skeptics." There really is no coherent body here standing in defiant opposition to paranormal truths. I hadn't even heard of Wikiproject Rational Skepticism until someone mentioned it during Martinphi's RfC. More importantly, I do not believe anyone disagreeing with "pro-paranormal" users self-identifies as a skeptic when discussing articles. It thus smacks of a pejorative usage in this context.
Needless to say, Davkal's choice to call users with whom he disagrees the "pseudosceptical side" is even worse. Please don't do that, either. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skeptics 

message: can a clerk please refactor out the rampant voting? it's a mockery of the arbitration process, in my opinion as an uninvolved (as far as i know) user. --Random832 04:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  voting 

message: I know I'm a party in this ArbCom, but I need to take a few days/weeks off for real-world projects. Sorry for any inconvenience. Please consider anything after this timestamp to neither be endorsed nor rejected by me personally. If anyone needs me to respond to anything, please drop a note on my talk page or send me an email as I probably won't be reading through everything posted here. Thanks and sorry I couldn't stick it out.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 05:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Off to see the wizard

message: Can someone please clarify the copyright status of :Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg? It is claimed to be copyrighted and fair use, but I'm unclear on how this applies. --Strangerer (Talk) 09:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg

message: The parapsychology article has been drastically revised, partly to make it more stable and reduce edit conflicts, and partly to address some of the concerns and points made in this arbitration. It accurately reflects the scientific consensus against parapsychology, and presents criticism from such mainstream periodicals as Nature (without rebuttal). It does present notable parapsychological research, but is completely framed as a fringe science and points out that these results have not been accepted by mainstream science. This is mentioned clearly in several places. The bulk of the article approaches parapsychology from a historical perspective. While the revision was mostly made to cleanup the horrible state it was in, it was written taking into account this arbitration and its progress thus far. I'm hoping the arbitration will consider the updated version in its findings, especially in the principles dealing with parapsychology.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 07:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Parapsychology]] rewrite