Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 8

message: I want to get a good idea of who supports this merger and who doesn't. Without adding any arguments for or against the merger just tell me whether you support or oppose the merger. This isn't a vote of any kind to determine the outcome, simply a straw poll to see who supports it right now and who doesn't. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: support- Wikidudeman (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: support if merging means to merge all the factual content of the article rather than cherry-picking. - LuckyLouie 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: support with LuckLouie's suggestion. In fact, I would go further and say let someone else other than Martinphi or myself choose what is already here and what isn't, so there's no question about it. Sad that I have to say that, but apparently I have to. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: support?:I'm not sure about the difference between a merger and a redirect.  I think a redirect would be better.  The criticism section in place is very general in order avoid turning into a criticism-response type of section.  If we can maintain the current feel of the criticism section, then I'm all for it. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 01:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: support as a general principle that WP:FORK files are bad. DreamGuy 01:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Support Slimmed down to essential and current points, and without the quotes. Nealparr has it right that the debate is endless, and where is the stopping point?  I was wrong to write this as I did, because there is no logical stopping place in the discussion. We need to just mention (with sources) the essential arguments, and leave it at that. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning merger... 

message: I've deleted the instances and phenomona from the see also section as they are mostly all covered in Scope. I've left the fields of work.
perfectblue 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: The dead link that was deleted wasn't dead after all so I've restored it, the actual dead link was the one underneath it.
perfectblue 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead Link

message: I have opened an arbitration request on DreamGuy.  Annalisa has been asked to contribute her comments directly via that request.  Anyone else who would like to contribute (in a positive, negative or neutral vein) can do so at WP:RFAR under DreamGuy. --DashaKat 18:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration request on [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]]. 

message: When I left this talk page yesterday everything seemed to be working ok, no one was attacking anyone else and it looked like we might be able to sort these problems out like adults. However I come back and see numerous arguments and paragraphs and personal attacks being thrown at one another and even a request for arbitration? I'm going to put some more work into the new Parapsychology article with it's merger from the Controversies of parapsychology article and I might even have a rough draft complete within a few hours, however inorder for this to work I'll need everyone willing to contribute constructive criticism towards the new rough draft without attempting to attack one another. Can we do that? Let's halt all arguments concerning this article until the rough draft is complete and then we can all work together to replace this article with it once we all agree on it. Is that possible? Wikidudeman (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a flare up yesterday, but no one's really fighting today. I think we're all looking forward to your draft, so write on and ignore the stuff that's going on over here. It's not important.--Nealparr (talk to me) 21:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual arguments yesterday were over the length and balance of the external links and whether or not the psychology category and templates should be in the article, so you might want to look at that in the draft.--Nealparr (talk to me) 21:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah and according to the arbitration, you're one of the attack dogs. Frankly, it's POV-pushers like yourself who should be ignored. But I guess we'll just have to wait until the arbitration is over before that gets done. DreamGuy 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we'll be just fine, external links and categories are peripheral stuff anyhow.  Hopefully that particular disruptive editor will be moving on soon. Carry on. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 21:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good god, enforcing Wikipedia policies does not make someone disruptive, even if there's a group of editors whose sole prupose on Wikipedia is to try o ignore policies to advance their own agenda. DreamGuy 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is getting out of hand... 

message: No one has in any way shown that anyone here has a COI.  I can see how one would go on a vendetta against another editor or editors in an ArbCom case, but spreading such behavior to other areas of Wikipedia is not appropriate.  If anyone feels they have a case concerning COI -or anything else- against any editor, I urge them to take it to the next level.  Till then, please desist in harassment campaigns.  I also urge other editors who have been responding to such campaigns to take a similar stance.  If anyone presents a good case proving COI or any other mis-behavior, then that will be the appropriate time to respond. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to the ArbCom against DreamGuy, this si not a case of harrassment.  The request for arbitration was clearly warranted. --DashaKat 23:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, of course not.  And if there is anything I can do to help with that case, let me know. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are already under arbitration yourself, so trying to "help out" another one is pretty laughable. DreamGuy 04:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't really take this as harassment...not yet.  Sometimes its a good thing if people want to take time to state their potential biases and assumptions, especially when trying to work together toward creating something neutral and/or objective.  --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 03:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: FYI, Annalisa has participated in the paranormal arbitration, but she is not a party to the arbitration (seems semantic, but it's a serious distinction). You are correct about Martinphi's ArbCom status, though. Antelan talk 04:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harassment of editors