Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal/Archive 8

message: It appears a well-meaning skeptical editor has inserted some original research into the article.  Their argument is fascinating and possibly worthy of conclusion if it can be found to be something other than original research.  From what I see, it seems that they have done the old "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" routine also known as: WP:SYN.  This is a wikipedia No-No.  In their overhaul, they also deleted a lot of other unrelated material.  On the talk page I requested feedback rather than just delete the OR material because it is an interesting argument.  My issue with the proposed hoax theory is that as described, it fits the pattern of internet fueled folklore which is not the same thing as a hoax., it is merely another type of folklore. The term Crybaby Bridge may be traceable to the Shadowlands website as the editor alleges, but the folk tales of such bridges certainly pre-existed.  Most were simply referred to as haunted bridges.  Please take a look and weigh in with an opinion if you can.  As always, this project welcomes documental skeptical viewpoints on such paranormal topics with the issue here being documented.   My hope is that we can document BOTH the folklore about such sites AND the skeptical viewpoint that they are all just fruit of the Shadlowlands 'tree" so to speak.LiPollis 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Require him/her to document all the material presented. If it is not done, excise it, and explain that it must be referenced, whether for or against. --Chr.K. 21:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Original Research instered into [[Crybaby Bridge]] article - could members take a look? 

message: FYI, National Institute for Discovery Science has been marked for deletion as a non-notable corporation. --Careax 15:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIDS marked for deletion 

message: Another wikiproject (WP:MEXICO) has a small section listing frequently vandalised articles, and asks members to keep watch on those pages. Is that worth doing here? Or is the watchlist and semi-protection enough? Totnesmartin 08:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A few articles do. Loch Ness Monster is my most edited article, and most of those were vandalism reversions. I do assume good faith (sometimes, I admit, through gritted teeth), unless someone replaces the page with THERE IS NO SUCH THING, or POOOOOOOOOP! Totnesmartin 08:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to find that instead of saying that there is no such thing, people tend to delete the sections about people who believe that there is such a thing, which falls outside of vandalism rules except where it's big enough to count as blanking. - perfectblue 09:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalised articles 

message: I created a spin-off of the main paranormal page's "subjects" so that I can summarize the more notable ones in a more encyclopedic fashion. I don't really have the time to work on the List of paranormal subjects page as I'm focusing on the main page. It needs sources and descriptions, better intro, and so on. If anyone wants to tackle it, it'd be much appreciated.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 00:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that I would have to strongly contest your inclusion of topics such as Reflexology, Homeopathy and other alternative health beliefs/practices. Alternative yes, Pseudoscience maybe, paranormal no. They are to the paranormal what miniature golf is to professional cycling. - perfectblue 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not my inclusion. That's just what's accumulated on the paranormal page over the years. Part of the help that's needed is weeding out things that don't belong there and adding ones that were missed. To start, I copied over the list verbatim. I believe those entries originally came from Randi's list of paranormal topics in his challenge FAQs, so reliablitiy would be an issue. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with [[List of paranormal subjects]] 

message: how do we join?--Sonicobbsessed 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just sign the participants section. Happy editing! Zagalejo 05:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  join 

message: I'm thinking of doing a page on the Iraqi urban myth that British soldiers released man eating badgers (later proven to be honey badgers forced to shift habitats by human incursions) around Basra to terrorize the locals. 
There is already a little about the story under Ratel, but I want to expand it out into a full urban myth/conspiracy entry. However, I'm stuck for a name for the entry as there appears to be no single name that I can use. What does everybody else suggest? I was thinking Killer badger (Basra).
It's a notable story in Britain and made the BBC news (The BBC is Britain's largest news broadcaster and is universally a WP:RS source).
perfectblue 08:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: killer badgers iraq gets 312,000 google hits, with a few from reliable news sources (and quite a lot from "hey wow" sites). Go for it (if I may use an eighties-ism)! It probably needs to be a different article, it would be silly in ratel and frivolous in an Iraq War article. Totnesmartin 08:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killer Badgers 

message: Persistence pays. Parapsychology was accepted as a WP:Good
--Nealparr (talk to me) 18:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, has anybody updated the project front page? - perfectblue 20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it in the GA list, not sure where else it would go. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Parapsychology]] accepted as GA 

message: Somebody has hijacked the project's page about the Iraqi Killer badger urban myth and has redirected it to the page on the Ratel, cutting out almost all catagorizations etc that link it to our project in the process. They placed a merge template on it and redirected the page within 24 hours, completely insufficient for anybody to object. I create the page and I wasn't even notified, as the creating project a notice should at the very least have been placed here.
perfectblue 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, it was very quick. What was the rush? And i see your reversion has been reverted. Totnesmartin 16:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is the perfect situation to put up a de-merge/split tag. Under no circumstances should an entry about real life animal be merged so utterly with an distinct urban legend. It's like Merging the page about characters from the lion king with the page about lions. - perfectblue 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page hijacking 

message: I would appear people in New England have encountered a new form of precognition. "Oscar the Cat predicts patients' deaths" I say we create an Oscar the Cat article on him. --Chr.K. 14:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be better at Telepathic Animal Communication, although that article is a bit crap at the moment. And what of all the other future-telling, mind-reading and psychic-danger-warning animals in the literature? Totnesmartin 16:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles on all of them, if I had my way, but for now, likely simpler to have additional sections for each such animal in an all-encompassing animal psionics page. EDIT: Btw, are you back? --Chr.K. 17:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Back from where? or what? Totnesmartin 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal preference would be a large article with lots of sections rather than a slew of stubs. It would also be easier to include examples that wouldn't justify even a stub. Totnesmartin 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feline Psionics 

message: The article indigo children was soliciting help from experts.  Should probably be under project paranormal if anyone is interested.  Puddytang 17:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigo Children 

message: Bigfoot in popular culture is up for AfD. Will future generations ever learn about Steve Austin and all that Boron? You can help decide! Totnesmartin 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another AfD 

message: I've added to the 'Paranormal Relevant Deletion History' section of the main WikiProject page content relevant to notifications about articles nominated for deletion via WP:PROD.  Some formatting damage has accrued, but nothing fatal.  I hope that this addition does not unduly violate scope of the section or WikiProject members' interests.  If you would prefer another notification venue for this deletion nom class, or none at all, please provide your input here.  Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case anybody didn't hear, I commissioned a tag reading bot for the project. Anything within our scope that gets tagged with a fact, cleanup, delete (etc) tag will be posted here. - perfectblue 07:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool!  Dreadstar † 08:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, very nice.  As far as I've seen, yours is the only WikiProject with a fully automated deletion notification solution; I've updated User:Ceyockey/Notifying WikiProjects of Deletion Proposals accordingly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles nominated for deletion via [[WP:PROD]] 

message: I'm trying to get West Coast air raid renamed to Battle of Los Angeles; as nutty as the proposed new title sounds, it's what the media and historians prefer calling it. "West Coast air raid" seems to be an invention of Wikipedians. Whether you agree with my position or not, feel free to contribute to the discussion here: Talk:West Coast air raid. Ichormosquito 17:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly support that request. If these claims are true then the case is good, but it's a surprising title to me. Often such renames are reversed a short time later, so I think some wider discussion would be good value. Andrewa 10:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Support "Battle of Los Angeles" is the most common name for the event. Zagalejo 18:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Support: most common name. - perfectblue 16:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Support, belatedly: the name was coined by newspapers in the aftermath of the event. I'll research it more in Dolan's work, for all pertinent information identifiable. --Chr.K. 11:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename request for [[West Coast air raid]] 

message: It looks pretty detailed and deserving, now. Thoughts? --Chr.K. 11:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Los Angeles should be nominated for GA-status 

message: Black Eyed Kids is currently up for deletion. I don't know much about this topic myself, but if you do, feel free to come to the debate. Zagalejo 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, the more I see this kind of thing happen (the article was AD'ed), I think I'm coming to genuinely HATE several of the pseudoskeptic Wikipedians involved.  I mean, real seething rage stuff...and I think I'm coming to be upset, as well, at other WP:PARAers who don't share this sentiment. --Chr.K. 11:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Eyed Kids (2nd nomination) 

message: There's an interesting dispute happening on the Psychic surgery article.  Since it was mentioned on WikiProject Medicine, thought I'd drop a note here too - since it has this project's tag as well.  Dreadstar † 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page seems to have attracted some fanatic haters. There's even opposition there to reordering the sections to put the criticism section after the history section, where it belongs. - perfectblue 10:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychic surgery 

message: Does anybody think that Wikipedia has room for a page about urban myths spread over the internet that are not notable enough to have their own pages (at least in the minds of skeptics) but which nevertheless exist?
perfectblue 13:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any examples? Zagalejo 22:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the list of deleted urban myths. Camp fire stories and so on, localized bigfoot/ape myths, myths spread through chat rooms and website, and so on. The Haunted Stitch doll would be a good example. - perfectblue 17:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a page on local Bigfoot myths seems doable. Are there any reliable sources that discuss the Haunted Stitch Doll? Zagalejo 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The crux of the problem here is "how reliable does something have to be to report on a myth?" From my perspective, so long as a myth is properly framed as being a myth it merely requires sources verifying its existence as a myth. Which can be anything from a peer reviewed journal about local lore, to a website reciting well known camp fire tales. Unfortunately, there are those among us who appear to believe that no source is reliable unless it is reliable to speak for the contents of the myth, rather than for the existence of the myth (they might, for example, ask for newspapers story covering The Hook or police reports of an actual hook incident in real life, then deny that the myth or sections of its content belongs on Wikipedia because such sources have never existed owing to the myth being nothing more than a myth). This tends to lead to them deleting popular culture sources. - perfectblue 10:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I share your frustrations. I think an article in Fortean Times or something similar should be reliable enough. Snopes should also count to verify the existence of a myth. Has anyone actually challenged these sources?Zagalejo 20:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Fortean Times and books by Charles Fort have been challenged more times than I can recall. As above, pseudo skeptics (the opposite of a true believer) bash sources like these constantly. The often claim that because they are not reliable sources for the science of a myth then they aren't reliable sources period. They simply don't accept the fact that we are trying to use them to prove the existence of a myth as a myth, not the existence of a myth as a fact of science or history. Some of them seem to be misguided and don't differentiate between proving the existence of a myth and proving the contents of a myth, while others seem to be intent on sweeping Wikipedia of any and all references that differ fro their world view. It's like an evolutionist trying to deleted a source showing that X million people believe in creationism simply because they feel that if it is shown that people believe in it then it must have some credibility. Alternatively, it's like a Creationist deleting sources saying that X percent of teachers refuse to teach ID because they think that it's harmful to science, because they are afraid that it will cause people to question creationism. It's silly, isn't it. There should be nothing wrong with presenting a myth as a myth and a pop culture artifact (EG the modern myths surrounding alien abduction) as a pop culture artifact. Yet some people simply can't stomach that beliefs and stories exist and persist independently from scientific and historic reality. - perfectblue 07:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfectblue, you should know better than that.  A pseudoskeptic is a true believer, while a real skeptic is the opposite of a true believer. –––Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Er? (and I apologies if you were being sarcastic) but a True Believe will believe regardless of the evidence, while a Pseudo Skeptic will not believe regardless of the evidence. Therefore they are opposites. A real skeptic will not believe without evidence but will believe with evidence therefore they are not opposite of the others (the others are not evidence based while the other two are not). - perfectblue 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi notable myths 

message: I have created an article about entombed animals. If anyone has suggestions for improvement, let me know. Zagalejo 05:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weeeellll, you've only got one peer reviewed journal entry as a source. I suggest that you find about a couple of dozen more, and maybe a signed affidavit from at least 2 serving Republican senators (or a serving 4 Star General), else the pseuodoskeptics will question its WP:V. - perfectblue 17:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It'd be better if there were some sources located in the page. --shade11 | (Talk  • contribs) 05:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cited four sources. What are you looking for, exactly? Zagalejo 05:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entombed animal 

message: Parapsychology has received Wikipedia:Featured article status. Congrats to everyone who participated! --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parapsychology made FA status 

message: Got one for you for the Bigfoot article. It is hdbrp.com/Shooting%20Cases.htm - Police and hunters shoot at Bigfoot. Just some shooting reports. 205.240.146.131 03:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt very much that the pseudoskeptics would suffer that site as a source. I know I would object to it on WP:RS grounds. I suggest hat we avoid it in favor of more credible reports. perfectblue 16:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shooting Case 

message: As you might expect, there is now a dispute on the Wikipedia:Featured articles page over whether parapsychology is part of psychology or part of  Religion, mysticism and mythology- in other words (in all reality), there is a dispute over whether it is to be given the status of science.  Your opinions would be welcome. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The functional issue was resolved to everyone's satisfaction.  The issue of abuse of power by a member of the Arbitration committee was never resolved, however.  I asked that it be explained how such a dispute could be taken to the next level, and by the silence which greeted this request, I assume that the Arbitrator -an individual editor- has total power on that page, with no recourse.  He is also willing to edit, revert, and protect the page based on his POV regarding the paranormal. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parapsychology FA dispute 

message: Has anybody got anything good on that story about the impact in Latin America that apparently made loads of people ill. As a current event it can be sourced from new sources rather than academic sources. - perfectblue 17:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found This which I think would be a perfect source. It passes WP:V and WP:RS and includes a skeptical analysis from named experts. The only issue, what to call the article itself. If only we could get a good fair use image. - perfectblue 17:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Natural events usually get titled (eg) 2007 United Kingdom floods, so 2007 Peru meteorite strike seems fine to me. Does this remind anyone else of Backwater by Brian Eno? Totnesmartin 10:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I prefer the tabloid approach (pop culture style naming), for example Carangas incident, but I guess that's not to everybody's tastes and I can see it drawing the ire of the pseudo skeptics like a magnet. - perfectblue 17:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's on In The News at the mo (yer tis me dears), so we've been beaten to it. Still, we can go over there and add our tuppenyworth... Totnesmartin 16:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin America 

message: Lately User:Badbilltucker has been adding the project paranormal banner to a lot of pages. While I commend this effort, I've got a few issue with some of their choices. For example, putting the banner onto Archaeological forgery and Etruscan terracotta warriors, Tiara of Saitaferne. As these pages stand, these pages and a number of others that have been tagged make no real mention of the paranormal, either in popular culture or in research controversy, and have no visible links to the paranormal at all.
I don't think that it would be very helpful to round behind the user and second guess (Wikistalking?) them so I've dropped a quick note on their user page. Does anybody here feel like dropping buy and saying hi, thanks for the assist, but ...., or should we leave it for the wider community to vote with their edits?
perfectblue 17:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Badbilltucker]] 

message: Electronic voice phenomena has been nominated for GA status.  The more eyes on it the better.  ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EVP 

message: Anyone know about this guy? If so, head over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Dean (Ufologist). Zagalejo^^^ 19:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Dean (Ufologist) 

message: I left the actual message at the Collaboration talk page, but it seems like people don't check there very often...  Cheers!!  Ninetywazup?Review meMy ToDosign here! 20:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Precognition is now up for Peer Review, if you want to add your ha'porth. Totnesmartin 09:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precognition 

message: The article needs attention, and has been the subject of POV-pushing. Currently protected.  ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Radionics]] 

message: Need a paranormal tag on that article. Thanks. 65.163.112.214 03:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gurdon Light]] 

message: Somebody is trying to gather some interest in creating a new Chitauri page after the certain users managed to AFD it (It was a rather weird debate as I recall, for some reason some people argued that it should be deleted because there were more notable uses of the word Chitauri; mostly in Marvel comics. And I don't recall there being any deletion criteria that hinge on there being a more common use of the word). For more information see Talk:Chitauri
perfectblue 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chitauri 

message: , anybody have an opinion on this? 
Honestly, I wonder at some people.
perfectblue 20:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a confusing argument. It doesn't seem to make sense, and if I could have voted, I would have stuck with keep. BRiCKDuDE102692 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paranormal Image deletion: have your say 

message: Not sure if this is allowed, but is it possible for lists of haunted locations per country, city, state, etc., to be created? It would be far more accurate than the current List of haunted locations. All in favor and who wish to help say so so we can get this on track.  BRiCKDuDE102692 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a more localized list would probably be targeted for deletion on notability grounds. There's strength in numbers here. Things that might not pass notability individually can pass notability if they are part of something bigger. - perfectblue 20:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not start a project for there articles? It would give it support and allow others to help with it. I don't know how to request a project, but this one might work. BRiCKDuDE102692 20:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I've had a look at creating projects, could project paranormal be a parent project for the aforementioned? It would get much support mainly because people like to put their town "on the map." We should have no problem gathering the necessary information. I would like to ask whomever is in charge of project paranormal if this could be allowed. I don't think it would be nice to create it and then stick it on like a parasite or something...brickdude 05:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't like the idea of a list of "haunted locations". I think that it would be very difficult to compile the info into a good article without POV or original research and with reliable sources. I think perhaps an article with a list of the very most notable locations where hauntings purportedly occur might work, but that's about it. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. I suppose it would be better to do that. Regardless, we need to replace or improve list of haunted locations. brickdude^_^ 01:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Haunted Locations 

message: Unbelivably, Paranormal is not tagged, and I don't know how to tag it...can somebody tag it? brickdude 05:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Unidentified Flying Objects...brickdude 05:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Cryptozoology and Parapsychology...is there a tag for WikiProject Paranormal? brickdude 05:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're tagged on their respective talk pages. See Talk:Paranormal, for example. Zagalejo^^^ 05:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh terribly sorry about that...brickdude^_^ 19:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untagged Articles 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black-Eyed Kids (BEKs). Come opine! Zagalejo^^^ 18:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black-Eyed Kids (BEKs) 

message: The recoded To do list is now back on line. It reads all paranormal entries and flags up any with specific tags on them. - perfectblue (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good News 

message: I've placed a merge tag on the above article. Please add to the debate! Totnesmartin (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ashtar Sheran]] merge proposal 

message: I'd like to change the icon on the paranormal-stub template from the photoshop of a ghost walking down some stairs to the P-files logo. The former isn't at all clear when shrunk down to that size, I had to expand it to full size simply to see what it actually was. A the P-Files is one of our project logo's I think that it should be on the template.
perfectblue (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, either nobody objects, or nobody is reading this. I'll give it a day or so and then change the image if nobody can give a good reason not to. - perfectblue (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead! Totnesmartin (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have it on my watchlist! :) Zagalejo^^^ 02:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I read it, for a start. - perfectblue 19:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Occasionally. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 23:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paranormal Stub Template 

message: In relation to the above, I've just detagged Mogdaan, it's a movie monster and thus not part of the project. - perfectblue 13:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a whole shedload (and will continue after me chip butty), and also removed several articles about ancient sites (Carnac etc) for which no paranormal claims are made in the text. Totnesmartin 18:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No to fiction 

message: Ghostlight is currently merged with Will-o'-the-wisp. the intro for the latter causes readers to believe that a ghostlight is in a swampy area, when in fact the Marfa Lights, a ghostlight in Iran are in desert locations. This kind of bulls**t will damage Wikipedia's reputation by the fact that some of these things are seen in non-swampy land, even in desert lands. Suggest that this merger NOT take place at all. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF is with the continual merger with these two articles ? 65.163.115.114 (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is a silly merger, but for another reason. It implies that ghost lights are a form of will o the wisp, when it is the other way round. Will o the wisp is a form of ghost light that refers specifically to a limited subset of ghost lights found in a limited subset of European and American folklore. - perfectblue (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The moment you find a reliable source for this contention, let us know. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will-o'-the-wisp/Ghostlight Merger Damages Wikipedia Credibility 

message: SatyrBot is now updating the project maintenance a little differently than before.  Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/To do list short and each of the sub-lists: 
Cleanup‎, ‎Expansion‎, Expert attention‎, NPOV issues, Verification‎, and Wikification‎.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool indeed. - perfectblue (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SatyrBot and Project updates 

message: I don't know much about remote viewing, but if anyone does, they might want to stop by this discussion. Zagalejo^^^ 20:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Price (remote viewer) 

message: UFO Watchdog is used to criticize people like Linda Howe, Richard Hoagland. When evidence is found criticizing skeptics, such as Philip Klass, criticisim is not permitted. Evidence is on ufowatchdog.com is on the "Hall of Shame, 7th entry on it". When I or someone else places it, it gets tossed, while it gets to stay in articles concerning "pro paranormal" people and some investigators. Why is that ? It criticizes both sides. I was directed to go here about this matter. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs settling real FAST, since someone could take this the wrong way, and it will make Wikipedia to appear to be "Pro Skeptic", and that may be used by other sites, such as Jeff Rense's website AS evidence of a sick govt. conspiracy (Maybe the CIA operation called Operation Mockingbird and/or the Robertson Panel, both used to manipulate all media, incl. Wikipedia) that he and others may be promoting. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seen this matter. Where is the Third opinion ? Why is it that paranormal investigators and those who "pro paranormal" as someone put it have UFO Watchdog used AS evidence of criticisim against them, and UFO Watchdog's evidence of it criticising skeptics NOT allowed. Is Philip Klass Sacred or something ?! I thought Wikipedia is not censored. 65.163.112.28 (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFO Watchdog 

message: The Remoe Viewing Template has been listed for deletion on the grounds that "remote viewing is obsure". 
Make your views felt here
perfectblue (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remote Viewing Template up for deletion 

message: Since a dispute has arisen concerning why this website can be used as evidence of criticizim of pro paranormal people and paranormal investigators, and why it cannot be used as evidence of criticisim of skeptics, when in fact it criticizes both sides, this should be a really interesting article. Evidence on there has been found criticizing Philip Klass, but when placed, it is NOT allowed, while it is placed as evidence of criticisim of pro paranormal people, investigators, and is allowed there. Evidence concerning Klass is  Hall of Shame 1, 7th on that list, and I've checked the underlined sections on him AND CISCOP as well. You would'nt believe what I've found about Philip Klass there as well. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Website is www.ufowatchdog.com. From there, go to Hall of Shame 1, scroll to the 7th entry on that list. Also see the underlined matter about Philip Klass and CISCOP as well. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be surprised what some of us know about Mr. Klass. --Chr.K. (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Request: [[UFO Watchdog]] 

message: Hi, I'm new to wikipedia (as an editor) but I've followed wikipedia since it was a wee project with just a few thousand pages. I have over the last few years grown interested in fringe science, but being non-american I do not subscribe to either the UFO-group mentality that some fringe science proponents exhibit, and I am also annoyed at the militant attitude of some skeptics. I feel both these angles are american cultural phenomenas rather than productive ways of looking at anomalous phenomenas or odd results from science. Being scientific minded I still think we will find odd things when we look closer, as this has been par the norm for all science. So I feel overly skeptic attitude is detrimental to find the truth behind some claims. 
My current annoyance has been the problem of finding good material on HHO, even if there are tons of reproductions (and I believe claiming all these to be false is akin to belief in conspiracies). Anyone have familiarity on this topic? The current article is abysmal and only discusses strawmens. The phenomena of reproductions is interesting in its own, and could he discussed as well.
--Benjaminbruheim (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What anti-UFO skeptics are militant? Some random bloggers? If that is the case one can cherry-pick "unreasonable" people from any "side" of a debate (like UFO existence). If not, who and why? Voice-of-All 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I rather want to focus on the reader experience. For example; I followed the California Drone incident. Known skeptics reported they spotted radiosity-artifacts. An Xbox-blog said it was part of the Halo viral. People would then later on refer to these skeptics even though there was no concrete proof in either of these reports, and it is exactly this which annoys me. We who went to primary sources would find that the "Halo viral"-claim was unfounded. The radiosity-claim had no technical underfounding except a similarity. So in this case it seems skeptics were just "acting" skeptic without being as rigirous enough to actually "bunk" the meme. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but what is HHO? Is this like HBO, a TV station?- perfectblue (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He may be talking about this: Oxyhydrogen#HHO. Zagalejo^^^ 19:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It is the hobbyist name of producing cheap hydrogen. HHO has a short blurb, but is the traditional usage of the term. Water fuel cell is also another popular name, however the article deals with only a specific design. The story is rivetting, and last time I was google reading about the stanley meyer design I found enough articles and primary sources to make an interesting story take shape. However the current article deals way too much space pointing out that it is impossible rather than describing the circumstances and the actual results of attempts to verify it. One notable aspects (which I have not found any WP:RS about) is using pulse modulated electrolysis other than speculation from people who haven't tried to faithfully reproduce it. Going to wikipedia was a miss on learning much on this subject. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I see what you mean, the entry on the water fuel cell does almost nothing to discuss Meyer's design, conspiracy beliefs surrounding it, or even the mechanisms of how the cell was supposed to work. You tend to get a lot of that on Wikipedia. People see that something is a hoax or is fake and they concentrate on the fact that it was bunk rather than on explaining the history or impact of said topic. You could have a race riot caused by a false accusation, and people will edit an entry to cover the fact that the accusation was false and that there was a riot, but they will either ignore or remove anything detailing why people believed the accusation or why it was made in the first because they feel that doing so is an attempt to justify it. It's the same with UFOs. A UFO is proven to be a weather balloon and editors will fight tooth and nail to keep out details of people who thought that it was a UFO and that it is being covered up, because they think that including these things is the same thing as saying that the weather balloon was an alien spacecraft. - perfectblue (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HHO verification & introducing myself 

message: Read all pertainable articles, and this page. May explain what is going on. 65.163.112.28 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Example of pertainable pages? --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Does this help ? 65.163.112.28 (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: People criticised incl. Linda Howe (conwoman), Richard C. Hoagland (some kind of nut, conman). 65.163.112.28 (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was [[Philip Klass]] [[CIA]] ?! 

message: I was toying with the idea of running for admin and since I often participate in discussions about paranormal and fringe topics, I was hoping to get some feedback on my editing. Anyone interested can participate in my RfC at User:Nealparr/RfC. Thank you in advance. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments 

message: PROD now on at Kingoodie hammer, if anyone's interested. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kingoodie hammer]] PROD 

message: Someone asked about the page being biased towards skeptics, since evidence against a famous one is not allowed there, yet similar evidence is used against "believers" and those that investigate paranormal matters. Is this template appropriate for the Philip Klass article ?

The references to Philip Klass are above this one. Just helping a IP. 65.173.105.225 (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I kinda feel that source is very biased. Is it really used as a source in other articles? --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It sure as hell is. See Linda Howe and Richard C. Hoagland to mention a few. 65.173.105.225 (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philip Klass Talk Page 

message: There is an RfC on WP:CiV that may be of interest to the participants of this project. Dreadstar † 03:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC of interest 

message: I tried to create a series of articles designed to act as a timeline of subjects related to the paranormal and pseudoscience. As soon as I had done so it was immediately marked for deletion. The reason? I hadn't created any of the articles yet! Yup. Apparently if you want to make a timeline, you have less than five minutes to detail hundreds of years of history or your work will be deleted. Then, after a desperate scramble to create as many small articles as possible to satisfy that guy, about three other guys attack it because of how poorly developed it was! Yep. The articles had been up for about ten minutes and they were already being deleted for lack of content! Does this make any sense to you? Me neither.
If you think that a timeline detailing major paranormal sightings, theories, literature, debunkings, exposed hoaxes, pseudoscientific movements, lives of researchers, etc would be a worthwhile endeavor, please help me out over here!
Abyssal leviathin (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the AFD before I saw this, but just to repeat myself, I've suggested that the pages be userfied so that you can fill them in more before they go into mainspace- that way you don't have to worry about the timescale. It looks like being a big project, so I guess you wouldn't complete it, but if it's filled in more then at least they can't AFD it for lack of content. MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, will do. Still, I'd like to try to avoid them being deleted right now as opposed to trying to recreate it in the future. Thanks for your support on the AfD page. :) Abyssal leviathin (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there should be some time to try and fill them out, with the hope of swaying some decisions towards keep, unfortunately because there's nine pages it's a big task. It looks like all the articles would need more content and referencing to have any chance. I would suggest perhaps concentrating on filling up one of the years, with proper referencing, rather than spreading effort too thin- if one can be proved worthy then it would justify later effort on the others. MorganaFiolett (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Save the Years in paranormal, fringe, and pseudoscience articles! 

message: See the Ref Desk:Misc. about this matter, there are pixes of this UFO. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stephenville, Texas]] [[UFO]] 

message: As some might have noticed, there is a debate over at this article. And there is by now a minor consensus, but this is now overshadowed by a debate on how fringe subjects really should be portrayed. Certain editors thinks the debate should be moved to policies, but there isn't a singular policy that is problematic. Anyone have any suggestions on how to go on?
Personally there are a few problems I see with the way the policies are now stated, some suggestions:
*Pseudoscience is a problematic term
*RS makes it impossible to use fringe sources as primary sources
:*This introduces bias since mainstream science doesn't "know" about the subject
:*The fringe sources is often the primary source
*Using mainstream science makes it possible to dismiss subjects on a priori reason (and thus introduces POV)
*A lot of fringe subjects isn't using "hard science"
Benjaminbruheim (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[What the Bleep Do We Know!?]] 

message: Hi WP:Paranormal. Should  and  be merged? Or is there some subtle distinction of which I'm unaware? DH85868993 (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories requiring merging? 

message: I'm an outsider, but someone should look into making a Wikipedia ad for this project. 65.75.191.236 (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An idea 

message: Here's another one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melon heads. Zagalejo^^^ 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow that was confusing...brickdude^_^ 19:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melon heads 

message: *Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Eden
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in Libya
Totnesmartin (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New AfDs 

message: You may be interested in this. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: Why is panspermia included in project paranormal? It's a valid scientific theory; one with little to no evidence, perhaps, but certainly not "fringe" or "paranormal." There is nothing unscientific about the idea that life might have been brought to Earth on extraterrestrial objects such as comets. I learned about the idea in high school science classes and college biology courses, and they certainly weren't treated as quasi-scientific or paranormal in any way.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbutler1986 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a recurring phenomena in UFO literature. I am surprised if there is an article on this exact subject already. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As Benjaminbruheim said, this is a common topic in Ufology and in various conspiracy beliefs. Usually, in paranomral circles its known by other names such as Distant Origin hypothesis or "alien ancestry". Variations on the topic are also  found in various stories about Atlantis and Mu, and by people such as David Icke. - perfectblue (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panspermia 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Grinning Man Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another AFD 

message: What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience? Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Wikipedia,  User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview 

message: Does anyone have any idea what criteria need be met for a UFO incident to have it's own article, and what type of sources can be used etc.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stay away from random websites and stuff. Stick with mainstream newspaper/magazine articles and levelheaded writers like Jerome Clark. Which incident would you like to write about? Zagalejo^^^ 02:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, the two I was thinking about first were Bob Taylor and the Belgian UFO wave. I don't see an article about Taylor and I did find the Belgian one but it has next to nothing in it.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put quite a lot of stuff in the Belgian UFO wave article but am a bit unsure how to do references. I have added two but would like to cite the same ref in more places without just adding it again. Can someone explain if or how this can be done.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFO incidents 

message: Does anybody know if there are any good Paranormal Wikis where users can post entries about myths and folklore without being hassled by people who insist that you need peer reviewed science and physical evidence to verify the contents of a campfire story? Honestly, the English language Wikipedia just picks up to many people trying to push the paranormal as being a branch of science rather than a branch of culture.
I've already tried sites like ParaWiki, but they're more orientated towards paranormal practitioners rather than researchers.
perfectblue (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll make one for you IF you send me an email. Can't discuss it here.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I don't want to make one. I already have my own Wikiengine already up and running as part of my off Wikipedia web presence. I don't have the time to maintain any more web sites, I just want to join an existing community involved in preserving and providing information about Paranormal myths, legends and stories. It's surprisingly difficult to find sites that deal with the Paranormal as a cultural topic. You tend to get loads of pro supernatural websites where they are convinced that everything that goes bump in the night is some kind of spooky specter, or you get pseudoskeptic websites populated by people who won't accept that you don't need peer review evidence of the existence of ghosts in order for a spooky story about a local house told round a campfire to be a genuine part of a regions cultural heritage.
Honestly, it's a complete pain sometime.
- perfectblue (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Right (-: ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paranormal Wiki? 

message: I've just had an entry in my sandbox listed for MFD by one of the usual critics. Everybody check your sandboxes. - perfectblue (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check your User space 

message: Hi all, this is a request for comments on the Archaeoastronomy article which is listed under this and a few other WikiProjects. It used to be a good article, then it was reassessed. It's been re-written. Suggestions for improvements to regain GA status and move on further are extremely welcome.
In particular you may want to examine the article for POV. There is an argument put forward that current article is biased in a way that the previous version was not. You may want to see the Talk Page for more on that. Sometimes an outsider's view can bring a fresh perspective on such arguments.
Thanks, Alunsalt (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Archaeoastronomy]] 

message: The discussion mentioned above has developed into a formal Rfc.  Further comments are welcome.  
Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC at Archaeoastronomy 

message: The discussion has now moved further to the No original research noticeboard.  Any light that could be shed on this problem would be appreciated.
SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's now at NOR/N 

message: on one of these shows? Contact me if you do, or have questions.--Filll (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would anyone who is a proponent of these topics want to appear 

message: Added a decent start to this requested topic.  --Factorylad (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Taylor incident 

message: Is anybody here have any experience of editing paranormal entries on Wikiinfo? It seems to have a much more pluralistic approach and different rules on POV and WP:OR that would make it a less difficult place to develop articles and build them to maturity. Any opinions?
perfectblue (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiinfo 

message: I've created an online experiment that utilizes zener cards to test for clairvoyance/precognition in a statistically meaningful manner.  In order to acquire meaningful results I need a large number of participants.  Can you help me spread the word and advise me on how I can use wikipedia to get the word out?  Let me know your thoughts.  Thank you.
-Scotopia 10:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematically valid clairvoyance/precognition test 

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

message: People keep putting the "In Universe" tag , which is specifically about works of fiction, e.g., Sherlock Holmes, onto the article about the cryptid Mokele-mbembe. Could someone have a look at the article and the tag, because it seems there is no way this tag should be on that article.Niet Comrade (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Tagging 

message: Does anybody have any good sources on the Gia Principle? Preferable scientific sources rather than new age sources.
perfectblue (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gia Principle 

message: This is an article started recently, but the original editor has now left, and needs a lot of work.  From what I gather he has published information on "non-human intelligences" such as angels.  Would this fall under the remit here? Paulbrock (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Timothy Wyllie]] 

message: Have you replaced User:SatyrTN's User:SatyrBot?  We at WP:CHICAGO  are looking for a replacement since he is no longer active. Please respond at my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  18:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satyr 

message: "We have two different articles about UFOs and IFOs. This is a self-serving distinction that isn't kept by reliable sources at this time. I propose merging the articles and using much of the text from the IFO article to indicate what UFOs normally are (aside from the silly and wishful reports). We need to inform readers about what UFOs really are (a social phenomenon, mass hysteria craze) and what they are not (visitors from another planet). The merge request is made and will be acted upon pending discussion."
SEE Talk:Unidentified_flying_object
*You may want to follow this up, it seems that a skeptic evangelist has a bone to pick?Vufors (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The UFO Article needs a total revert then ScientistApologist needs to be reported for editing in bad faith. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A healthy sense of skepticism is certainly necessary. Our articles on the paranormal should be grounded in a skeptical perspective. There's no hard evidence for any of this stuff, after all. (But that said, I do agree that editors like SA can be somewhat extreme. They're almost like the men in black.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The point that SA ALWAYS misses is that the purpose of a Wikipedia entry on the Paranormal is not to reach a correct conclusion, but is instead to document the debate. SA doesn't seem to understand that when you are dealing with a myth on Wikipedia best practice is not to demonstrate that the myth isn't grounded in science (A myth is a myth, after all. You would have to be s special kind of person to see it any other way), but rather to document the history and contents of the myth. A year or so back there was a massive arbcom (plus a couple of ones personally about SA) about this very topic which made multiple rulings which were not to SA's liking. In summary:
*The purpose of a an entry is to document the controversy, not to simply documentary scientific opinions on the subject
*That describing something using paranormal terminology does not imply that the terminology or the subject has any grounds in science
*That describing something as a UFO, a ghost, a psychic, a mythical creature etc (With appropriate Wiki links) is sufficient to inform a reader that the entry that they are looking at is not a science page
*That Wikipedia can legitimately include entries about something that is not real in science so long as it is documented in some for, and so long as it is described as above.
SA felt betrayed by the arbcom and has disputed it ever since, whenever it gets quoted at them basically respond "That's just your interpretations" but never commit to anything more. It can be very difficult to deal with SA sometimes as they have a dislike for compromises and they will delete rather than tag, they also constantly try to treat pages about popular culture as if they were pages about science.
perfectblue (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  SA says he will merge the articles despite the fact that there are far more people voting to keep the articles as they are or are objecting to the move. I informed SA that there will be no merger and that I will file an objection. I could use some help if I have to seek help. thanks Magnum Serpentine (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFO vs. IFO merge issue 

message: Read it, sounds like the future version will read like it will be in compliance to Robertson Panel guidelines, also compliant to Operation Mockingbird guidelines as well. The intent is to make anyone who reports a UFO, a alien out to be loonytoons, an ass, worse. Also read commentary about a rebellion should there be alien contact as well. Should not the reader decide if a subject is real or not ? 65.173.105.243 (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been trying to do some work to the UFO article. The way it is now is much too focused on percentages of cases identified. Some of that is my fault but given the current start which leaps straight into the stats I feel my edits are good ones. Nevertheless, I support an alternate introdution by PefectBlue and would prefer to see it reinstated. (The current introduction might make part of a good subsection about %ages identified, but it is no good as the introduction to the UFO article.) At the moment though there are so many editors, many seem to be one editor, making changes that there is no point working on the article at all until we have a stable version because all the work is down the drain if the article flips to the other alternative. Is there anything we can do to put a hold on things to try to find the best way forward. At the moment it is madness in there.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Get some Admins on this then. That may stop the disruptions and the article from reading like it complies with govt. regulations, worse. 65.173.105.243 (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been an eye opener. These days Wiki is not a place for the faint hearted; editors need to be bold, have speed, lots of experience – nothing like the Wiki mantra, for example The Founders Rules  . I have seen some good edits but… it needs to settle down… keep cool. Vufors (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the catalyst & skeptic SA has made a complaint to admin 00:21, 2008 June 16 ? Vufors (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFO article under attack! 

message: See the latest that has been going on there, such as what appear to be  unauthorized strikethroughs of commentary on the talk page. I have, according to Wikipedia policies, notified some Admins as well, hopefully to put a end to this war before it really get any worse. 65.173.105.243 (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: War on the [[UFO]] article, Talk page

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 

message: An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ?  " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. --  TinuCherian     (Wanna Talk?)   - , member of WikiProject Council.  14:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A discussion 

message: Currently, 1213 articles are assigned to this project, of which 450, or 37.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of .) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles flagged for cleanup 

message: On every Sunday night and on Saturday night(re-broadcast of Sunday night's show) is a show segment called Beyond Belief. Yesterday, it was about a mutant animal and kids who have psychic powers. It has been on for a few weeks. Others featured was the Honey Island Swamp Monster, UFOs, miracles, angels and demons, Bigfoot, other paranormal related matters. This airs on FOX News, as part of (usually) Hannity's America. Chech show listings and airtimes. 65.173.105.133 (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sean Hannity Paranormal ALERT 

message: Tonight on this radio show Loren Coleman will be on the show during the FIRST HOUR ONLY. The rest of the show is "Open Lines", so watch the language guys. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any night owls out there who want to keep a eye on this ?! 65.173.104.93 (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tonight on [[Coast To Coast AM]]

message: ::Evidence, so far, is:
*http://www.bfro.net/hoax.asp
*http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2008/08/15.html#recap - Show claims Hoax. 3rd paragraph says that hoax is a money making venture. IF so, according to rumor, these two hoaxers could be prosecuted for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud. Since HUMAN DNA was found, they're looking at possible murder charges. I heard these on the show last night.
*http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2693.html?theme=light - CNN interview says HOAX
*http://www.bumpinthenightproductions.com - Company that sold Bigfoot costume.
::More evidence enroute ASAP. This is a developing story. I got rumors about criminal prosecution as well, incl. murder charges for the hoaxers, since human DNA was found.65.173.104.93 (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Georgian Bigfoot Body Is a HOAX

message: Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology still active? There doesn't seem to be much happenng there except routine notifications etc. I prodded the talk page yesterday afternoon and nobody's responded yet. I'll propose a merge with this project unless anyone objects. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support: I think this would be a good idea. The creatures under the cryptozo-umbrella fit uniformly into either WP:paranormal or WP:animals/plants (if proven to exist). StevePrutz (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some wikiprojects cover cryptids even while still unproven. WP:CATS, for example, covers Ennedi tiger. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: In addition to his sweeping edits on the List of UFO organizations, he seems to have taken a personal vendetta against all paranormal articles I have submitted to this project. If you look at my talk page you'll see that he's nominated everything I've researched for you guys for deletion. Does anyone have advice on what to do about this troublesome member? Maybe arbitration? SeanFromIT (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've come here following links from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Young (Ufologist). My advice would be to fix the articles and ensure their notability (individuals) is referenced to reliable sources. I appreciate that this is a difficult field - but there are books published on the subject and also mentions in the mainstream media - build on those. What is never permitted is original research. I will happily rescue any deleted articles for you - but they must be brought up to a standard that is acceptable to wikipedia, otherwise someone will propose them for deletion again. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruption by member [[User:Otolemur crassicaudatus]] 

message: People may want to express an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humanzee.Kww (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For those wondering, if case anybody was, the result was    Keep  and a very strong  Keep.  I was happy to see so much support for the fine work that Kww has done to keep that article in good order and well-referenced.  good show!LiPollis (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanzee 

message: If you are familiar with the books of author John Michell (writer) please help to advance this article with a balanced neutral point of view on BLP. The article and talk page has received good faith input from skeptics and editors from the Fringe Sciences Noticeboard who may not be as familiar with this author's work or subject matter as those editors who work on WikiProject Paranormal. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expertise Wanted 

message: Edgar Cayce mentions that "He may have been the source for the idea that California would fall into the Pacific ocean (though he never said exactly this)." I don't think that we already have an article on this idea (catastrophic subsidence of California), but I think that it's been mentioned enough times in pop culture -- by Cayce, by Madame Blavatsky and the Theosophists, in Curt Gentry's 1977 book Last Days of the Late, Great State of California -- to justify creating one. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea - it's a theme that occurs in occultism as you say, but also science fiction (eg the first Superman film), and there are probably some people who believe in it as a scientific possibility. that would make a nice little article that I'd be delighted to Stumble Upon. San Andreas fault might have some stuff too. I couldn't find much on the internet apart from this, surprisingly. btw if you start an account at Wikipedia you can create the article yourself (I can't as I don't have the material to hand). Have you asked at Wikiproject California? I bet somebody there would be able to help. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinking of California 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Paranormal 

message: Crossing genres a bit but posting this here anyway,
I was looking at Lycanthrope and werewolf, and figured I couldn't think of anything I would have in one article and not the other, and that the terms are synonymous. Please join in the discussion at Talk:Werewolf#Merger_proposal. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal of [[werewolf]] and [[lycanthrope]] 

message: I came across this article while editing other things and saw it had a section on a purported haunting. I added our project tag, assessed it as a Stub and placed it on our To Do list for Expansion.  Rosewood Center is a psychiatric hospital located on Rosewood Lane in Owings Mills, Maryland.  Places like this are very popular with Legend trippers and therefore it might be good to see what documentation we can add to the article that helps establish the history of such sightings and more importantly, to establish the potential dangers of trespass since it is an old structure in a state of disrepair that very likely will be closed soon.  Any help you can give is appreciated.LiPollis (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rosewood Center]] 

message: Warning notice: Editors and members of this project should be aware that Humanzee has been nominated for deletion.  You may go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Humanzee if you wish to make your views known. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanzee 

message: The gang at DYK has started a subproject to generate DYK to be posted during October 31, 2008. The subproject/task  force is at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Halloween 2008 and twenty-four or so DYK articles (six per DYK Main page change) may fill up the four October 31, 2008 DYK Main Page posts. Paranormal plays a role at Halloween, so please feel free to contribute your talents to the efforts. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 20:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's gonna be a DYK Halloween 

message: Xenu 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.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Xenu]] 

message: I'm requesting input on the discussion here; primarily I'm wondering, does the bit about Berkeley and Newton belong in the intro, or in a later "Cultural references" section (to be renamed from "Popular culture")? Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ghost]] 

message: I've created the subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Paranormal which is part of the WP:DELSORT effort to give better alerting about ongoing deletion discussions. Interested members should add this page to their watchlist. __meco (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion sorting for Paranormal articles 

message: The List of alleged UFO related entities article is being discussed as an Article for Deletion if anyone care to comment or change the article to address the concerns raised by other editors. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of alleged UFO related entities article at AfD 

message: I think an article should be written on United Nations General Assembly decision 33/426 (1978) which was approved on December 18 of that year. This is a document which mandates the establishment of a UN organization to coordinate UFO and extraterrestrial information and research from member countries. An initiative has recently been made with the UN Secretary General to effect this decision which has laid dormant since 1978, and with the 30 years anniversary coming up, this would be an appropriate article to put up now. This can also been seen in context of the ongoing efforts to revive the deleted article on exopolitics (see Talk:Exopolitics). __meco (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Nations General Assembly decision 33/426 (1978) 

message: There is a proposal to redirect Seth Material (an article within this Wikiproject's scope) to Jane Roberts. Please comment at Talk:Seth Material#Redirect to Jane Roberts. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to redirect 

message: Announcing a new list:
* List of alternative medicine subjects
-- Fyslee / talk 08:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New list 

message: Hi guys, just clicked on random article and got Aix-en-Provence possessions. It looks like it comes under our umbrella, and it also needs sorting out - it seems to read as if the demonic possessions were real. Cheers. 81.159.254.71 (talk) (totnesmartin at work) 13:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Aix-en-Provence possessions]] 

message: I've been doing some work adding sources to the List of UFO sightings article and could use some help.Anarwan (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[list of UFO sightings]] 

message: The article on Bilocation has been esentially plowed under to form a new article (previous version [] here.) - which is, as it happens a perfectly fine article on Bilocation as a theological concept. However the previous article, which is almost entirely gone, was a perfectly fine article (as validated by it's recent AFD survival). It would be a lot of work, but I think it would be constructive to integrate the old content with the new. Alternatively they could form two seperate articles, but I think they would be weaker for it. Thoughts? Artw (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bilocation]] 

message: Hey, I'm unsure if this is the right place to ask about this. If it's not, please inform me and I will move it to a more appropriate place.
I've written the Black Eyed People article, but it still needs a lot of work. Does someone want to look over and edit it, see if they can make it more presentable? Thank you! Theloniuscrow (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be getting the necessary assistance on this article. It's main problem as I see it is its lack of mainstream references. This makes it an obvious candidate for a deletion nomination. __meco (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks! Can you define mainstream references, or point me to a wiki article where they are defined? Theloniuscrow (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the information you seek can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. __meco (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! Theloniuscrow (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Indeed they are - I'm currently rescuing various AfD'd articles to another wiki, so the information is not lost - and yes, it is a GFDL wiki. It seems a shame that so much work and research is trashed in this way. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one of the main problems is that this is a relatively new phenomenon, so almost all references are eyewitness accounts, which aren't the most reliable. But I'll check around a bit. There should be some article about it, if not now, perhaps sometime in the future (in which case we could just rewrite it again). Theloniuscrow (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Eyed People article 

message: Is there any point having that template up? it's been Cottingley fairies for nearly two years! There's no point having it if we don't keep it up. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, that can probably go. Whatever happened to InShaneee? Zagalejo^^^ 00:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm in favor of letting one person alone change/update it, if there's only one who cares about it. 1-0, all others abstaining, is still a vote, and it brings certain pages to everyone's attention. My "vote" for here and now is the 1976 Tehran UFO incident, now that Richard M. Dolan's second volume of UFOs and the National Security State, concerning 1974-1991, is due out within the next two or three months, and the sighting is by far one of the most prominent known. --Chr.K. (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the month 

message: This article is nominated for deletion if anyone wants to see the newly created article or comment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Exopolitics]] AfD 

message: See Talk:Ghost#Merger_proposal Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed merger of [[Apparitional experience]] to [[ghost]] 

message: I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks!  - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "biggest number of spurious AfD's" for a milestone? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milestone Announcements 

message: Hi!  I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate.  This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group.  If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators' working group 

message: Hey there, I have a long standing interest in the paranormal, and would like to help with this Wikiproject. I have created two paranormal-related articles, Tony Stockwell and Gordon Smith (psychic). The main page said to enquire here, so I thought it would be more polite than to just add my name to the list. Thanks, Macromonkey (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd like to help 

message: I created the article Fairy Investigation Society on March 20, 2009.  I believe it is in the scope of this Wiki Project, and thought you might want to include it.  Duchess of Bathwick (talk · contribs) 20:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fairy Investigation Society]] 

message: I am opening this up here at Talk:Ghost#Consensus_on_size_and_contents_of_the_lead so we can get a consensus on what should be in the lede. Comment on other ideas and/or add yer own on what the most salient points are. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Voted for the points I think are most important and/or needed in a lead.  Let me know if you need help writing the lead after you get a consensus for what is needed. Truly, Duchess of Bathwick  18:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section of [[ghost]] 

message: Hi everyone! I was so excited to see that there is a paranormal project at wikipedia. I am a new user at wikipedia but I've been adopted and hopefully will be able to really help with this project because it is something that I really love and I know a lot about. If it's okay, I am adding my name to the members list. Please let me know! Thanks! Lyrical Israfel (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great! One thing for you to do is keep an I on the deletion nominations related to this project when we get notifications of such and see if you can contribute either in the discussion to delete or improving the article in question. Cheers! __meco (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can I help? :) 

message: Someone or other, a while back, put up some merge tags but did not initiate a merge discussion.  At issue is whether to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology into Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal. This sounds like an eminently sensible idea to me.  Too many articles are tagged with both projects, and there are not enough active participants to keep both projects running well.  Nor to keep in check pro-paranormal editors who might violate WP:V and other policies, I would suspect.  At most, cryptozoology should be a task force of this project. To quote one of your own members (from this page's archives): "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... --InShaneee 22:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a strong in-house argument for a merge to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 07:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I second this. A cryptozoology work-group/task-force would look nice though, but this is not an area which I have particular interest in, so I won't assert my opinion stronger than that. __meco (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: There was a discussion (maybe it's been archived on on the crpto talk page) - as far as I remember it petered out into "no decision" - I still support merging. That's project's comatose. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I am opposed to the merger. While the two subject fields may overlap in some areas, I think the two are separate fields with many separate interests. My participation in the cryptozoology project has more to do with my duel interests in zoology and mythology/folklore. And from judging by the members' self-described interests, there are several other members with these similar interests. I'm not interested in the paranormal, and if the cryptozoology project were to be swallowed by the paranormal group, I'd probably withdraw my membership. Kpstewart (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a definite mythological aspect to much of what is covered by WP Paranormal. That does not conflict with that segment also belonging to the paranormal category of phenomena. WikiProject Mythology and this WikiProject stand in a reciprocal relationship to  each other in that respect. Now, since the cryptozoology project may be too small to be sustainable as an independent project, it could become as taskforce or work group within one or more other projects. Why not let both the paranormal and mythology WikiProjects have cryptozoology work-groups? The articles could be tagged with one or both of these as deemed appropriate. __meco (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea to me.Kpstewart (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposed 

message: Infobox paranormal creature has a POV problem. See talk page for details. —Fiziker t c 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox paranormal creature 

message: I have done a GA Reassessment of Curse of the Colonel as part of the GA Sweeps project.  I have found the article to no longer meet the GA Criteria and as such I have put it on hold for one week pending work.  I am notifying all interested projects of this and the eventuality that if the article is not improved it may lose its GA status.  Here is my GA Reassessment, feel free to contact me on my talk page should you have questions.  H1nkles (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Reassessment of [[Curse of the Colonel]] 

message: Witchcraft has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Reassessment of [[Witchcraft]] 

message: A new Fortean Wiki called Forteana has been created. It is not intended to mirror the Fortean pages on Wikipedia though inevitably there will be some usage of information from Wikipedia, at least in the early stages. It is hoped that Forteana will eventually become more extensive and detailed than the Fortean pages on Wikipedia and as the site will be dedicated solely to Forteana then it should make it easy to find information. It is also possible for authors to include material there which is copyright, and which cannot be edited by others, and I believe that this is not possible on Wikipedia.
The site is fairly small at present but grows day by day. Anyone is more than welcome to join and help with the site.
*Forteana: The Fortean Wiki
Cornovia (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Creation of a new Fortean Wiki 

message: I added this image in Bélmez face´s article
I hope it is useful.
Lightwarrior2 (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Bélmez face image 

message: I know there must be a a ton of citations around for this subject. Unfortunately, few of them happen to appear in this article. I've posted a message in talk that large-scale trimming is coming without some citation work. Folk here might be up for just such a task. The article needs a lot of help. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Celeste in desperate need of citations 

message: [The following comment of mine appeared today on the PK Talk page.]
Michael Shermer's The Skeptics Society issued a call to skeptics yesterday to actively "fix" paranormal topics on Wikipedia. See: eSkeptic, July 22, 2009 article: "Fix Wikipedia." Sample of the advice given: ". . . just go to the Wikipedia article for your favorite paranormal topic and see what needs fixing!" I mention this here in case there is a sudden surge of edit wars, as I note the [Psychokinesis] article had the pseudoscience category added at the bottom today. I am not adverse to skeptical input, as I was a long-time member of a skeptics organization myself and have added much of it to the article. I just want to make sure there is balance in the article. We long time editors have had many discussions about this. I don't want to have to restart those if possible. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  eSkeptics newsletter call to edit Wikipedia 

message: I have previously proposed the creation of an article on this document. I found a recent newspaper article that deals with this subject. __meco (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Nations General Assembly decision 33/426 (1978) 

message: :At the suggestion of  I am leaving this message here as well.
I recently completed a sweep of the pages tagged with the black project template that fall within the scope of the military history project. In my report to milhist on the pages, their content, and the questionable material and sourcing in some articles I received a reply from the a contributor at WP:SPACE suggesting the milhist formally incorporate a working group to oversee these black project to better ensure that they stay free of original research and unreliable sources and ensure that the pages conform to the best of their ability with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 
The more I think about this suggestion, the more I am of the mind that it would be a good idea not only for WP:MILHIST, but for WP:SPACEFLIGHT and WP:AIR. The vast majority of the black projects covered break down into one of four distinct categories - space based recon satellites, advanced recon and fighter/bomber aircraft, military R&D programs, and signal/electronic intelligence programs - and each of our projects is best suited to cover one aspect of these black projects. 
Working groups at milhist are considered to be a step below our task forces, so if your project members agree to participate we will not have to create a bunch of new pages for the working group, we can attach this working group to either the military technology and engineering task force or the Intelligence task force and use the existing task force as a base of operations.
For this reason and for the potential for better improvement and monitoring of our black project articles I am interested to know if there are any members of this project who would be interested in joining such a working group. As the working group must exist within the milhist project I would ask that all interest parties place their replies on the main milhist talk page, noting the project you are from (if you are coming from a project other than milhist). Please feel free to ask any questions or make any comments/suggestions, at this point this is very much in the planning stage, and any feedback/input would be welcome. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a multi-project manned working group to focus on Black Projects 

message: I have found evidence of original research and abuse of sources in this article, and have suggested it for featured article review here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Parapsychology/archive1 Shoemaker's Holiday Over 193 FCs served 18:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review on Parapsychology 

message: Multiple discussions have been ongoing in recent weeks about issues with the Precognition article, including whether it is a paranormal topic and how it is to be defined. There are only two editors involved, and we need additional contributions to work towards consensus. Thanks in advance for any contribution, MartinPoulter (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on [[Precognition]] 

message: Kilner's theories were not paranormal; they were based upon an idea common in science at the time but now generally thought obsolete; that of intercellular communication via ultra-violet radiation. Redheylin (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Walter John Kilner]] 

message: Is there very much interest for getting this project back on its feet?  A lot of the paranormal articles could be cleaned up and the whole area really needs more interested people looking after it.  I'd like to help out but I don't know so much about how the whole WikiProject thing works.  K602 (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave up because of the arguments. Not so much that I don't like arguments, but that the same points kept being raised - by the same people. I just thought "this is where I came in" and unwatched all the paranormal stuff. Back in 2006-7 though, this place was great. If we can get people to abide by the huge arbitration case from a year or two ago then this place could pick up. To get to the point, I know a bit of wikiproject stuff so I'll see what I can do. Like finding the arbitration case in question, for starters... Totnesmartin (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is active? 

message: Has anyone heard of this term? Someone recently created the article spectronomy and I can't find any sources for it. Searching Google for "spectronomy" yields  a lot of incorrect usage of spectrometry or spectroscopy. Thanks, Pdcook (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spectronomy 

message: --Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Reassessment of [[Egyptian Theatre (DeKalb, Illinois)]] 

message: This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

message: There is a proposal to move Token-object reading which is only claimed by this project, so I've brought the matter here. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Token-object reading for continuity.  - Steve3849 09:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move [[Token-object reading]] to [[Psychometry]] 

message: Announcing an RfC at Talk:Ghost#RfC:_Context_of_NSF_statement_about_belief_in_ghosts. The questions being discussed are:
1. Whether the National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are "pseudoscientific beliefs".
2. Whether their expressions can be considered to represent the current scientific consensus (in the USA) on that subject.
See you there! -- Brangifer (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Context of NSF statement about belief in ghosts 

message: Please weigh in there. This is just an announcement. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcement of RfC at [[Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RfC:_Wikilinking_to_Category:Pseudoscience_in_this_policy|Talk:NPOV]] regarding use of [[:Category:Pseudoscience]] wikilinks 

message: A discussion has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Is_the_paranormal_pseudoscience.3F. Unomi (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Paranormal pseudoscience 

message: An article for automatic thinking is missing (by the way' Iwm not sure that this name is right also in English, but I know that this is its name in Hebrew like you can see it in the Hebrew Wikipedia).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.208.102 (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic Thinking, 

message: After a recent request, I added WikiProject Paranormal to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pageview stats 

message: Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone.  Articles were selected based on their assessed  importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Paranormal articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details.  You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010.  As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide.  Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback! 
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paranormal articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release 

message: The article Conduit (spiritualism) is in need of work, and probably needs to be renamed.  Any thoughts?  Conduit (paranormal) would be a possibility, but I'd rather trust to the expertise of this project in selecting a name.
CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Conduit (channeling), perhaps? Totnesmartin (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conduit (spiritualism) 

message: Anyone skilled with articles on Cryptids? I think Michigan Dogman needs a little more substance but I'm not sure where to go since this isn't my forte. (Also, the cryptozoology Wikiproject is very, very, very dead.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything you can squeeze out of this? I used to work on cryptozoology/paranormal articles, but I rarely bother anymore, because you can never please anyone. Good luck. Zagalejo^^^ 03:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: With you there Zagalejo - if it's not "there's no such thing, delete the article" it's "let's make the article prove it exists." No wonder this wikiproject is barely alive. I'll have a go at the Michigan Dogman (which I must admit I've never heard of). Totnesmartin (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michigan Dogman