Thanks for the award! It was very kind of you. I have made a further addition to the talk:psychic page that you might enjoy.

As I have said on that page, though, I regretfully do not have the time at the present to fully invest in developing proper and relevant articles. I am hopeful that this will ease up come November-December. However, I will try to keep current with the discussions as much as I can.

Thank you very much again for your kindness and thoughtfullness. Nomorebs 07:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Man, I've found a lot of interesting stuff on your page. I appreciate your interests very much! You are a human whom Lise Bourbeau probably would call "of Aquarius era". Very neat!

So many societies I'll copy into Russian Wikipedia! — Tolek R. 01:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Tolek R., Thank you for your kind words, many of my influences have come from the Shahmai Network, take a look you might find it of interest. I'd not heard of Lise Bourbeau before but she seems interesting, why not start the page on her as the link is still red? I think Wikipedia is a great way to learn about the ideas of others and come into contact with areas that just don't get covered in normal encyclopaedias, and it's always nice to meet a like mind. Best wishes - Solar 13:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Is this the picutre you are looking for?

http://www.facinghistory.org/ctp/ctp.nsf/All+Docs/CTP+crisis?OpenDocument

Yes, thanks for your help, I have been pointed to a few sites now. Thanks again. - Solar 17:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your friendly welcome, Solar. I have read your most interesting profile, and look forward to many discussions on spiritual themes - Suziebeau 10:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

After taking a look at your profile I really wanted to urge you to go through the nine lecture videos here.. http://www.falundafa.org/bul/lectures/index.htm#video

.. I am sure you will like them a lot... :)

Dilip r 17:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Nice to hear from you :). Regarding Falun Gong, I would request you to go through the teachings directly, as there is a lot of slanderous material being propogated by the CCP. For a true spiritual seeker such an extremely high level Xiulian(Cultivation Way) is something too precious to miss.

In eastern traditions or in western inner traditions like gnosticism, there is the concept of this plane of existance emanating from a higher one - which some traditions call the heavens. The gnostics have a saying "As in the heavens so on earth."

If you look at the upright culture of each race - be it Classical Western music , Classical Chinese Dance forms or Classical Indian Dance it carries the elements from their corresponding divine bodies. Even the images of Boddhisattvas and Angels differ - these certainly are not made up things. Master Li Hongzhi just pointed out in one of his speeches that mixing of races on such large scale has happenned only during this period of time. You could look also look at what the Bhagavat Gita mentions regarding the mixing of races.

Regarding "homosexuality" it is said that a cultivator must give up this behaviour. Infact the Buddhist Scriptures, The Bible, The Gnostic Bible - Pistis Sophia all share the same viewpoint.

I can tell you with utmost sincerity that Falun Dafa is just something too precious to miss. You will understand for yourself once you listen to the nine lecture videos and just try out the exercises - there is no need to look at what I say :) .

Dilip r 06:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Dilip r, thanks again for your comments, but a friend of mine is a very active Falun Gong practitioner and teacher and I am very familiar with Li Hongzhi's opinions, including the lectures. I wish you success with your cultivation, but Falun Gong is simply not for me.

IMHO race is simply a set of physical and cultural traits dependant upon what part of the world our ancestors settled in, I do not believe that mixing races is a bad thing or that it has only happened in this age. Li Hongzhi is quite explicit that he views racial mixing as a negative thing; my spiritual experiences and teachings focus on equality, tolerance and compassion towards all peoples (and forms of life for that matter).

As far as Li Hongzhi's views on the gay community, I can only say this again is a form of intolerance, which in my view stems from fear and a lake of compassion and understanding. Many of the scriptures of many of the religions advocate various types of intolerance, in the form of violence, racism homophobia and sexism, in my view this does not make them right it means that we have moved forward by viewing these ideas as out of line with modern experience.

Having said all this, I do admire many aspects of Falun Gong and its practitioners and believe that everyone must explore their own views and experience of the world for themselves, it is not for me to judge, I am simply offering reasons for why the practice is not compatible with my understandings and practice. I hope you can understand my position. Best wishes - Solar 09:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Pal. I just want to quickly add that I am not "phobic" towards anybody- It is compassion alone that we cultivate. There are mistakes/flaws in all of - things that are not in line with the cosmic characteristic and I believe spiritual progress involves overcoming those flaws/attachments - every trace hatred, jealousy and all bad attachments. The Bible points out certain actions are "wrong"- Jesus Christ certainly wasnt "intolerant" nor did he say that in human emotion- he in his grand compassion, pointed the flaws within us - and showed his disciples a path which they themselves had to walk. Wrong action and the person committing the mistake are never the same. Buddhism tells us that we suffer the consequeces of wrong action and wrong thought - that, I believe, is not speculative philosophy. If you believe there is some wisdom in the cosmos it is easy to appreciate that human suffering is coincidental.

I really respect your beliefs and ideals and I must say I am glad I met you. I sincerely wish you the very best in your spiritual endaevour. Bye for now :) .

202.83.34.15 13:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Dean Radin claims to have bent a spoon with his mind. Go to Dean Radin follow trail to his blog page. It is in his book. User:Kazuba 7 Sept 2006

Yes, I am well aware of this. Radin does not expect this to be viewed as part of his wider work he offers it as a 'possibility', he tried to replicate the bend using force in an attempt to explain the event, which shows me that he is not certain the spoon was bent with his mind. He is simply describing an unusual 'personal' experience, which seems to have been a psi phenomenon. I personally do not know if such a thing is possible, but I would certainly not discount his entire position and body of work on this basis. He states on his blog that he was very sceptical of this area himself, and I don't think his claim has any relationship to the Uri Geller school. Radin would have been very aware of the implications of making this public, and would have known this would not help his position. - Solar 08:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply

```Openly claiming he bent a spoon to the public in his book and on his blog page, and defending it, gives a strong indication Radin does not see this as peculiar. If I remember correctly, Radin recommends John Taylor's 1975 book,Superminds, or was it John Halsted's The Metal Benders, 1981, (Here, Superminds is a reference) both are classics in psychic hokum. (Yep, Uri and his spoons are there). This is also "very" peculiar. Radin's statement of just because we did not find any evidence of remote viewing in the Stargate Project (2% over chance) at a cost of 20 million dollars, does not mean it doesn't work, is true, but also peculiar.

This evidence suggests Radin has reached the same irrational stage as a firebug filling out a job application admitting they like to start fires. This seems to happen quite frequently to those involved in parapsycholgy. One gets the impression because of unwelcomed scientific findings,(it was probably evolution and preliminary Biblical higher criticism in the 19th century) these scientists are trying to find something metaphysical: mysticism, miracle, immortality etc. within science to believe in so they can find comfort. This is not good science or good religion. I submit, like Sheldrake now defending telephone and e-mail telepathy Radin is, as they say on the street, out-to-lunch. It is unlikely he will be coming back without therapy. Like 16th century witch hunters and burners who never wanted to admit their mistakes; they had gone over the edge. So it goes, over and over and over, from one generation of psychic "scientists" to another. It is certainly nothing new to the historians of the conjuring community. User:Kazuba 8 Sept 2006

KazubaI'm going to make a guess here on a future statement about psi from Radin; if he hasn't said it already. Something like this: "Parapsycholgy is too important to be hampered by the old ways of experimental proof, and it is the abscence of proof that is perhaps the most damning". It is fine to propose speculative ideas (Quantum and psi), but if they cannot be tested they are not science. They don't even rise to the level of being wrong. User:Kazuba 8 SEpt 2006 Kazuba If Radin bent that spoon, as pictured, it was physically bent around a rod with a tool in his hands and he knows it. This seems to be Radin's only real contribution (physical) to psi. (It will keep the money coming in). 2% over chance just doesn't get it. Let's see Radin do it for Randi and others. I'm done. You can have the last word if it makes you happy. User:Kazuba 8 Sept 06

I am willing to have a fair and mature discussion here, but I will not engage with individuals who resort to unfounded accusations and character slurs. Please keep your prejudices about Radin to yourself. You have simply presented ad hominem arguments.

I did even consider not replying to you after belligerent statements like “You can have the last word if it makes you happy”, but I decided I would for the benefit of others who might read this discussion.

As I mentioned previously Radin is well aware of the problematic nature of making a claim about bending a spoon by psi. He states in his blog “I understand the doubts. I held the same skepticism, no matter how many times people showed me pieces of bent metal, or their insistence in how it became bent. Before you experience it, it's difficult to believe” [1]. This seems fair and reasonable comment. I am sure Radin would not expect this to be taken as proof or conclusive in any way; it is more personal and functions in his book on this level. He also goes on to comment on the Randi prize etc., "As for the prizes for such claims, master skeptic Ray Hyman agreed that no scientist would ever accept a single demonstration as evidence for psi. Such prizes might be good for skeptical PR, but they are not science and not what my colleagues and I do. I mention in the book that even should someone try to win the prize, it would realistically cost over a million dollars to produce sufficiently strong statistical evidence (of the type discussed in the book) under conditions that would satisfy any skeptic, and thus the prizes are literally not worth the effort." [2]

Many who support the existence of psi have some personal experience that ‘underlines’ the science. The problem with scientists or sceptic’s like Randi who say that an extra-sensory experience was ‘simply’ a hallucination is that this does not explain factual information that came through during the experience. Until the Randi’s of this world explain this to ‘normal’ people who have had accurate experiences people will continue to give psi the benefit of the doubt. I have heard all the arguments about poor human memory, wishful thinking and folie a deux, but this does not always hold up. It is all very well to get dismissive, but these experiences remain, and they have not been adequately explained, people like Radin and Brian Josephson are engaging with this in an open and fair way, which is very important for people like me.

It seems likely that you would not accept any positive evidence (except maybe from James Randi) and would argue that it was either a sloppy experiment or it was fraud. I have not seen the statement you claim Radin made saying "we did not find any evidence of remote viewing in the Stargate Project", you would have to supply a reference for me to comment. You would also of course focus on the 2% statistic you often claim, but not for example the Remote Viewing examination by Edwin May that found odds against chance of 10 <sup>20</sup> to 1, which is more than a billion billion to one. There is also the work by PEAR, which came to similar odds of 100,000 to 1, through to 100 billion to 1. We all have a POV informed by our experiences, and for me my experiences and the work of people like Radin lead me to the opinion that psi is a reality. I am not alone in this view, Nobel Prize winning physicist Brain Josephson, as I’m sure you are aware, states “the evidence for (psi’s) existence is overwhelming”.

Another problem is the tactics that sceptics use, which includes name-calling and slurs; this does not instil confidence that sceptics are fair, objective or even trustworthy. If I compare the likes of Randi, Penn & Teller or yourself to Brian Josephson or Dean Radin, neither is perfect but the later have a seriousness and integrity not present in the former.

I think that those with an interest in Psi on Wikipedia want a degree of fairness, not this McCarthyist approach that seems so prevalent. Sceptic’s need to understand that our position is valid, as is yours, and that although we may not agree, respect must be the basis of any discussion or process of learning. I hope you can understand my position, I understand how emotive this must be for someone who must feel a belief in this subject is both damaging and false. Best wishes. - Solar 12:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

KazubaThis is not emotional for me. I am not Randi. Like I said Radin could bend his spoon for "others". I have a pretty good suspicion telepathy may exist, but not much beyond it. But I think it will take better parapsychologists than Radin and those seeking mysticism to find it. I can only share with you the knowledge I have gained from watching spirtism to parapsychology for the last 45 years and seeing minimal progress. I am only trying to be a critical historian in the matter, nothing more. Randi and I don't see things eye to eye. People who attend spoon bending parties, and recommend bad science books are not very reliable. If I angered you, I am sorry that was not my goal. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. It sounds like I did. Having a sense of hearing, seeing, tasting and such are mundane and not mystical. If telepathy exists I imagine it will be pretty much the same. I really don't care whether or not psi exists. I enjoy the history of the quest and the puzzle. I do not consider myself a skeptic. If you read my user page you know that. Sorry I added this (I gave you the last word) but I seem to be very misunderstood. If you have made mistakes in your life, as most of us have, you should know you cannot trust experience. There are many failed marriages. User:Kazuba 12 Sept 2006

KazubaThe 2% over chance can be found in the on-line paper, Utts and Josephson: The Paranormal: Evidence and Its Implications for Consciousness, 1996. This 2% over chance for Stargate is consistent with an earlier study in an article by Honorton and Ferrari which is noted. There has been duplication. I would imagine Dean Radin is aware of this since he was supposedly connected with Stargate. He likes to use the word "significant". I have not seen figures. Shared delusions and hallucinations may be a form of telepathy. Perhaps some day we will find out. It may be I expect too little, and you expect too much. User:Kazuba 12 Sept 2006.

``` I never claimed Radin said "We did not find any evidence of remote viewing in the Stargate Project." Just go back and look. It was "Just because [we did not find any evidence of remote viewing in the Stargate Project] does not mean it is not there." Your statement is taken out of context. There is a delicate difference. Watch out for those cognitive distortions. User:Kazuba 13 Sept 2006

Thanks for your comments, and don't worry you didn't offend or anger me. I'm glad to hear that you are at least open to the possibility of telepathy; is this due to the experience you mention on your user page? I have been drawn to my opinion by countless experiences and while I am well aware of the arguments related to the unreliability of memory this does not convince me. Many of my own experiences have been transcribed within minutes of the event, and with clear detail, not ambiguous emotional language. I understand that this will mean little to you as you will no doubt assume that there must be an error in my memory or too much wishful thinking etc., but this just doesn't stand up as a real explanation in my opinion. I understand your position on not being able to trust experience, but this is a little unrealistic, all of us trust our experiences, we may test and question them, as I do, but ultimately we have little else to go on except the work of people like Radin. I can't expect a fair evaluation from sceptics, I keep up to date with their arguments, but ultimately they have already come to a conclusion, a conclusion that does not adequately explain my own experience.

As far as your statement that you did not say Radin said "We did not find any evidence of remote viewing in the Stargate Project.", makes little difference as I made no comment on this, I just requested the source so I could see the context and what he was getting at. I don't think any "cognitive distortions" took place I think the point you were trying to illustrate was simply unclear, that's why I made no comment on it.

And finally the 2% does seem a little low, but there are yet other studies that have far better odds above chance (including odds of billions to 1 already mentioned). I believe that these abilities are like any other human abilities and tend to peak at times when emotion is high; this is the type of scenario most often described outside the lab. When I weigh everything up, my own experience, the many anecdotes of others, the research of many scientists, plus the opinions of people like Brian Josephson, I feel that at the very least my opinion is a valid one and should not warrant quite so many criticisms. Especially when most criticism repeats the same arguments that I have been asking myself for many years, as if I am ignorant or uninformed. This just gives me the impression that sceptics and those critical of psi are ignoring what is happening to so many people, writing it off as hallucination, which does not account for the accuracy of many of these experiences.

I think we should just agree to differ, I fully understand your position (and I'm glad you are not a dogmatic sceptic, just critically minded), Best wishes - Solar 12:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply

```I do not trust my experiences or my emotions. My thinking can be irrational and distorted. I try to critically examine them as close as possible, especially if they effect my feelings. For example, I may imagine I know what are another's motives and what they are thinking about something, but don't take the time to check it out. I could be dead wrong, cognitive distortions. We all do it.

I am sorry I didn't save a link to Radin's statement on the failure of remote viewing. It is the just a typical excuse for a failed inquiry into many things. I didn't make it up. That is not my way. If you keep looking maybe you'll find it. I've had no luck finding it again. I found it totally by accident. You have probably had the same expirence on the NET, there is a lot of stuff!

When persons start using the odds of this happening are so and so, I've learned not to trust it. To me its a game. I've seen it used too often on a variety of things. Someone is trying to baffle you with numbers. Usually they don't give you the figures to show you how they arrived at that magic number. My favorites were the odds against a brick sprouting wings, another were the odds of a blind man completing a Rubik's cube. How the hell can you arrive at these figures with mathematics? Be cautious.

There is no need for a new occult. Sloppy parapsychology opens the gate. You don't want your grand children bending spoons, talking to the dead, and telling fortunes in school. The dark side of irrationality, madness, and superstition is much closer than you think. Just study the past. I see you have an interest in paganism. Try the classic work of E.R. Dodds' The Greeks and the Irrational. Nice to hear from you. User:Kazuba 21 Sept 2006

Hi. Thanks for responding to my suggestion that Category:Psychics be renamed. As you stated "A consensus sounds like a very good idea.", which I agree. To that end, since I'm the only one that favoured the idea, I'm going to leave it alone until some hypothetical time in the future that someone else happens upon the conversation and supports this move. (I'll continue to respond to new questions or points raised, but I think I've made my point, even if I make it alone.)

Anyway, thanks. -- Billpg 16:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm leaving you this message because I noticed you are interested in Wikipedia:Wikiproject Paranormal. We're currently starting a new project which we need the help of our members in, the WikiProject Paranormal Collaboration of the Month. This is an initiative where we can identify articles that need work (especially high-traffic pages), and get the whole project involved with their improvement. Currently, we are in the process of voting for our first collaboration. We'd appreciate it if you'd stop by, vote, and add any articles you may think may be appropriate for the project. Also, you may wish to add the Collaboration page to your watchlist to observe future collaborations. If you'd like, we've also created a category to collect articles covered by our project as a reference, if it helps. So, thank you for your interest, and happy editing! -- InShaneee 16:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey Solar, thanks for your kind welcome. perusing your profile was a delight, and i find that we have a lot of interests in common. i might take a while to get regular at wiki, cuz around this weekend, i have to move to the EU for my masters....my name is rishabh, i hail from jodhpur>rajasthan>india. really nice 'meeting' u at wiki cheers, Legalese

Dear Rishabh, Thanks for your kind words; I see you are from India, I've visited India twice over the last ten years but sadly never got to Rajasthan as yet. I am planning to visit India again possibly next year at festival time; I spent Diwali 2003 in Deli, it was quite an experience, I have never seen so many fireworks! Where in the EU are you going? I am from London, UK, and have travelled quite a bit in the whole of Europe, and lived in Paris for a while as well. Wherever you are headed, good luck, I'm sure it will be an amazing journey. Best wishes - Solar 11:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

How do I make a user article? I cant seem to find an area to do so. Also, I just wanted to let you know, that anyone can edit your user page.

Corey Clayton

Hi Solar, By all means add these significant numbers to Remote viewing. My only wish is that they be related specifically to remote viewing, and cited and dated in some kind of sequential dating order. (This is highly unlikely, but the mathematical formulas to show how these numbers were determined would be nice to see.) I do not want the Remote viewing materials to be unfair and void of important findings. User:Kazuba 8 Oct 2006

Hi Solar, I noticed your update to the Unicursal Hexagram and appreicate your contributions, especially to other affairs looking at your profile. I am Vegetarian but my profile needs completely starting again as I havn't touched it in so long and i have done so much since both here and elsewhere. I am writing to you to see if you want to join this and help and add your name ot participants. Thanks! FK0071a 10:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the invite but I don't have a particular interest in Germanic revivalism or mysticism. Best wishes - Solar 17:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Solar, Sorry for the delay in responding. I was away at the Society for Neuroscience conference in Atlanta. Did you mean the link to his lab website? I double checked the link, and it seemed to work, but just in case, give it a try like this: http://lnco.epfl.ch/ If you still have troubles, let me know, and I'll try to figure out what's going on. Maybe his site was just down when you tried? I also posted this on my talk page. Edhubbard 23:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Asking people to vote is not acceptable. It would be unfair for me to do it.

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. On-Wikipedia canvassing should be reverted if possible. [3]

Please provide links that prove it is notable. Arbusto 22:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

As far as I am aware meatpuppets and sockpuppets are quite different to making other members aware of an article for deletion. If I have broken any policies it was unintentional. As far as I am aware a meatpuppet is a user account created by a member of the public (a non-user) for the purposes of voting, informing other users the article is up for deletion is not meatpuppetry. As far as links, I do not feel I need to spend any more time on this debate as it is clear from the 26 or so wikilinks to the page and the connection to Dean Radin that the article fulfils inclusion standards. As user ripley mentioned pseudoscience is not grounds for deletion, so your initial reasons for nominating it are in fact dubious. I will not be commenting further as I have other areas to deal with, and I am confident that whatever other users decide will be the right decision. - Solar 23:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Your reply makes little sense. I quoted the policy you should know, and provided a link.

Yes, that it is pseudoscience isn't grounds for deletion. However, claiming that it is science isn't grounds for inclusion. Provide sources. Arbusto 23:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Please read what a meatpuppet is, the policy you quoted refers to meatpuppets not users invited to post. Wikipedia policy is "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view on their talk pages in order to influence a vote.". The policy goes on: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice." [4] Therefore posting to a project and two users seems to be well within policy. Please stop asking for sources they are not required to keep the page and I do not have time now to source them, if the debate is not clear in the next day or so I will see what I can find. - Solar 23:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Speaking as an uninvolved admin- asking people to "vote" when you know what view they will take is votestacking and is unacceptable. Please do not continue. JoshuaZ 00:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Your assumeing Solar knew, or cared, what view the two people he invited to the debate would take. --- J.S ( t| c) 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Solar, I just saw your additions to the OBE page. Overall, I think they are really good. I've followed your refrence and ended up doing some pretty substantial copyediting on what you wrote. Take a look at it. I've tried to preserved the sense of what you wrote, but tried to make the neuroscience clearer to someone coming from the outside. I've also added some mention of the other case study, since both of them go in the same direction, suggesting right parieto-occipital involvement, which is consistent with the Blanke data. As an aside, although the Persinger review you cite is published, the original data have never been published in a peer-reviewed format, which makes me more cautious about Persinger's conclusions than I am about Blanke's... this is nothing specific to the psi area, just a general distrust among us professionals for anything that hasn't been through our standard procedures. Best wishes, Edhubbard 20:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your professional input on the neuroscience section, it looks much clearer. If you could add some explanation in layman’s terms of the general functions of the areas of the brain mentioned I think that would also be an improvement. I was not aware of the original data having not been published, it does seem odd, but it would make little difference to the psi debate as there are countless studies of psi ability which have been fully published, including studies of Ingo Swann. I think the psi issue is a side area for Persinger but one that his findings support. What are your thoughts on Blanke's belief that there should be more study of the psi area in a neuroscience context due to the objective experience of one of his patients? PS: Also thanks for the positive comment on the deletion page for Project Rational Skepticism. - Solar 20:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Sure, I'll try to add just a few words about the role of the parietal-occipital cortex shortly. As for Blanke, I think that he's right, that we need to study this more. I personally think that there's a lot that we need to study more about unusual experiences (OBEs, phantom limbs, etc). I personally am not convinced that the data is compelling enough yet to say that psi exists, but then again, there's plenty of people that would have been skeptical of my research area ( synesthesia) until we did the behavioral and neuroimaging studies that we did. I think seeing that development with my own two eyes has made me a little more sanguine about future scientific developments. My personal hunch is that we will explain a lot of these experiences through neuroscience, and then, in a sense, they won’t be considered psi any more. As for the above chance performance and anecdotal evidence for knowing things that people can’t know, I know that it's one of the most debated areas in the whole field, and I tend to avoid getting too involved in that aspect of the debate. Edhubbard 22:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Environmentalism was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

AzaBot 18:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Solar, Please help me to become contributer in Spiritual Portal. Is it possible?

Razum 15:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Solar, thanks for the barnstar!  :-)

cheers M Alan Kazlev 00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, thanks for the welcoming. Erisie 14:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Solar, wow! Thank you so much for the huge compliment! It was such a nice surprise to receive it - especially from someone who's work I admire. You really made my day! Dreadlocke ☥ 03:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm curious to find out who was being handfasted. I'm on this yahoo group: [5]. Of course if they don't want to be identified then that's fine.

BB Totnesmartin 21:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Related question: Image:Paganavebury.jpg. Is this from the same handfasting ceremony? Could you tell me more about the ritual, and whether the people involved were Wiccan or some other form of Neopagans (or something else)? There's a bit of a discussion about whether the pic is more apt for the Wiccan or Neopagan articles, and how it should be captioned. Any info would be appreciated. Thanks! ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 23:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Am I barking up the wrong tree with the Edwards article when I want to reduce the number of "claims" or "purported" or other modifiers that I think are just meant to give the article more of a critical slant? Dreadlocke ☥ 05:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't know much about John Edward, I've only ever seen him on TV once, but I do agree with the guideline WP:WTA. Using 'claimed' or 'purported' is usually avoidable by using more 'detail', this also gives the user more to base an opinion on and improves the article. Reading an article using the word 'claimed' in every line, reads more like a legal document than an encyclopaedia entry. - Solar 10:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, exactly! That's just what I was looking for - the WP:WTA, the feeling of having to read a legal document with all the "qualifiers", and adding detail instead. I've read several of Edward's books and should probably sit down and gather information from them for the article - if I can find the time and energy! :) Thanks Solar! Dreadlocke ☥ 17:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi there,

I'm contacting you because you listed yourself at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. You might be interested in a new wikiproject page that lists photographers and articles that need photos by location. The page is located at Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service or WP:PMS GabrielF 00:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Solar,

thank you for your kind Welcome to Wikipedia. I might not contribute much, if at all edit where I see a mistake, maybe. In fact, this account is sort of a replacement account for my German one, where I once edited a little bit, but found it too... well... I hope the English language Wikipedia will remain open and of free spirit and keep (at least that which deserves it) knowledge....

In fact, I just wanted to say "Thank you." Good luck to you ! -- Deus et esse idem. 11:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Solar, thank you for the welcome, just want to ask you, I want to add a image into the article of David Roberts about his meeting with Muhammad Ali Pasha in Alexandria, I found the image in the spanish article about Muhammad Ali Pasha, could you explain me how to upload this image

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/RecepcionMehmetAli.jpg

Gracias y saludos cordiales,

-- Eduardo Tellez 18:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

As the image you want to add is in Wiki Commons you just need to type: [[image:RecepcionMehmetAli.jpg]], for more options and details about image formats etc., please see: Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. - Solar 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Wow Solar, thank you for the barnstar. That is so totally nice of you. Namasté Martin<sup>phi</sup> <sub>( Talk Ψ Contribs)</sub> 00:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your excellent contributions to paranormal articles. - Dreadlocke ☥ 05:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know about that! I really like this idea and I'll see what I can do to help support it. I've always thought that while Randi could be included, there is far too much emphasis placed on his opinion and group - it needs to be limited. It's a good place to start.

I've received many comments from readers and new editors of Wikipedia that our articles on the paranormal are skewed towards the skeptical view, I've received comments like: "The articles in Wikipedia do not represent the balanced views I have found -- they only convince me of the con (Skeptic side)." That's just not right.

There have so many comments of this nature about Wikipedia that I've been considering taking this directly to Jimbo, and it would be very helpful to have a guideline from Project Paranormal to stand on. It might also help bring Project Rational Skepticism a bit more rationality on paranormal subjects.  :) Dreadlocke ☥ 20:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

What's your take on this discussion? I find it kind of strange to limit an article on mediums or mediumship to either parapsychology sources or spirituality sources - but not both. It also doesn't seem like something that will protect the article from over-enthusiatic skeptics. My own comments are here: User_talk:Martinphi#Mediumship. Thanks Solar! Dreadlocke ☥ 00:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Solar, thanks for the welcome and the links. Your personal page is well articulated. Amitchaudhary 02:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm new to Wiki and wanted your advice on how to handle some of the shamefully biased stuff that keeps showing up on the Dean Radin page. I made some edits in an attempt to tone down the pejorative language and personal attacks, but my edits were reversed. Any thoughts on how to make this fair?

BTW I recently interviewed Dr. Radin for the http://www.skeptiko.com Podcast. I haven’t posted the interview yet, but if you want to listed to the pre-released version here’s the link http://reason9.com/podcast/upload/skeptiko2-radin-1.mp3

I'd be very interested in your opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atsakiris ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC). reply

Thanks Atsakiris, that was the best interview I've heard with Radin. I especially found his comments on presentiment fascinating; I would have loved to hear his ideas on how he sees this as functioning. Precognition and presentiment are areas I often wonder about in terms of how they could be possible. Straight telepathy and esp are much easier to appreciate on this level, but seeing through time is much trickier. Do you have any thoughts on this?

As far as the bias, it is a real problem, the best thing you can do is make sure you cite sources and try to go to the original source if at all possible. If you have solid papers to draw from there is little reason to revert, unless you are not being neutral, see Neutral Point of View Policy. I noticed that you added a point that Radin denies a criticism about a Carl Sagan quote, if you'd cited a source for this you would have been OK I would guess. Without a citation it could look like original research (which is not allowed on WP), and essentially any problem with what you add will be jumped on by those wishing to show only a negative image of Radin and anything related to psi. It also looks like you added "unrelenting skeptics", this would be seen as biased language, again see the Neutral Point of View Policy. In general we have to be far more exacting with our contributions to psi related articles as there is a core group of sceptics on WP who do not mind attacking your position in an almost agressive way, which seems to me far from scientific. Best wishes - Solar 12:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the feedback. Regarding presentiment, I share your uneasiness (kinda makes my head hurt thinking about it), but the data looks pretty amazing. Multiple replications, positive results after meta-analysis. Science has been showing us that our reality ain’t what we think it is for 100 years, but it’s still hard for me to let go of the dance.

As far as WP, I guess I’ll just keep plugging away. I’m new to it so it may take a while. I tried to sum up my position with NOPV Re Radin. I’ll see what kind of response I get. AD 18:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I think you've summed it up, Radin is mainly personally criticised, rather than on the basis of his findings. I am always surprised that out of the many hundreds of pages he has published the actual scientifically based criticisms with any substance are few and far between, I think that speaks for itself with the amount of sceptics who would love to find something to use against him as a scientist. Most of the arguments are ad hominum attacks, like his credibility must be poor because he reported a strange experience at a spoon bending party or he was sacked once, etc., etc. And of course ad hominum arguments are logical fallacies and would not stand in any mature discussion of his work.

I also listened to your interview with Rupert Sheldrake, for me Sheldrake is a little trickier and I'm not sure about his ideas, but it was a very interesting interview. I am always impressed by the calm balanced maturity that these scientists maintain in the face of so much criticism, something the likes of Randi, Dawkins and Hyman could learn from. - Solar 19:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I think Sheldrake is brilliant… but that’s just my opinion. He recently posted audio of a head-to-head debate he did with Chris French (a noted British skeptic). The link is: http://www.sheldrake.org/B&R/realaudio/Sheldrak&French281106.mp3

It kinda long, but excellent. AD 21:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks Atsakiris, Don't get me wrong I find Sheldrake extremely interesting and his ideas fascinating, it's probably just my understanding of physics is much better than my understanding of biology, so I feel less familiar with the territory. I believe all scientists who have stood up to be counted on the issue of psi deserve great respect and admiration. If there is anything I can do to help with your podcast from the UK, let me know. - Solar 14:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thx Solar. I'll have to show that butterfly to my kids... they'll think it's cool. AD 17:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Solar, These equations bug me. Edwin May supposedly described the odds against chance being the answer is 10 times the square root of 20 to one in RV. Supposedly a billion billion to one. (I'm not that sharp on math.)

Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne say that after 25 years of RV study the odds of the results being chance are 33 million to 1.

Why don't these fiqures match? It looks to me like they really don't know what the odds against chance being the culprit are in RV.

In PEAR the numbers are 100,000 to one to 100 billion to one against chance. How come there is such a number spread? Again this indicates to me they have no idea what the odds are, and they just fudge them.

Might as well just say we don't know what the accurate odds are against chance, but we think it is a lots and lots. (That doesn't sound too scientific does it?) How do you explain these numerical differences? How accurate are they? Do you have an alternate explanation than these guys faking numbers? Could you show me? I'm genuinely honest and curious, I mean no sarcasm, axe grinding or such. I just want to know. User:Kazuba 30 Jan 2006

These figures simply reflect the odds against the possibility that the results could be due to chance. So it is not really a case of 'accurate odds against chance' as this would be expected to change. It would seem normal to me to expect fluctuations in the level of effect over many studies when dealing with human psychology and different types of trial and even different approaches to the statistical evidence. It is also important that any meta-analysis has been funnel plotted. The fact the effect is large enough to eliminate chance as a likely explanation is the important factor in my view. - Solar 11:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
( Explanation and Disclaimer)