![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Lundse - I am skeptic, I have heard of no peer-reviewed nor reproducable experiments on paranormal phenomenon. On the contrary, there is still over 1,000,000$ up for anyone who can show any psychic, occult or otherwordly effects - no takers. I believe articles on the paranormal should be neutral, telling accurately what adherents believe and why - and why mainstream science (ie. applied common sense) does not buy into the phenomenon. Attempts to prove such phenomena should be reported, along with any methodological problems with these proofs.
That's a lie. The "Amazing Randi" is a fraud. If you bother to listen to him or read him closely, you'll learn that Randi has NO intention of allowing ANY objective third party to monitor any "research" that Randi pretends to conduct to validate anyone's claim regarding the paranormal. (I doubt that Randi even has $100K in the bank for any reason.) You're NOT a sceptic, you're a debunker. As the Amazing Randi, you have no intention of permitting honest inquiry. Leave us alone and get a life. StarHeart 22:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If you bothered to actually study the issue, you would know that it's NOT about Randi having the $$ or not, it's about the fact that Randi has NO intention of having ANY 3rd party to monitor ANY experiment regarding the paranormal. He wants to COMPLETELY control and monitor ANY experiment. What science credentials does Randi have? StarHeart 05:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation by Ramsay MacMullen, Harvard University Press, 1966, A classic study the supernatural within the ancient Roman empire
The challenges I listed were a good place to start being material for this topic. But apparently, some waste of space (a gremlin?) has self-assigned their meaningless self to sabotage our efforts and deleted my contributions. I assume it's their way of fabricating potent into their life. StarHeart 02:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you talkin' about me? I didn't do nothing to you! ~VNinja ~ 16:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete my comment? I am trying to help this project, having gotten involved with the astrology articles lately - I realize you may not agree with me, but that should be a reason to address our differences, not censor me out of the project. I would still very much like to know the opinions of other people involved, with regards to how paranormal phenomenon should be reported. Lundse 07:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Because your comments are NOT contributions. You're a debunker, not a sceptic. You're sabotaging the efforts of those with integrity who HAVE studied the topics of Astrology and the Paranormal. It's obvious your sole source of reference is the devious "Amazing Randi." Why don't you get a life and stick to the topics you actually have studied. News flash: not all opinions are facts, not even yours. Knowledge are opinions based upon experience. You have yet to reveal having ANY experience regarding Astrology or the Paranormal. There's more to life than books. The best books are based on EXPERIENCE. If you ever left your library you might learn that. StarHeart 05:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The only reason I deleted your comment was 'cause I posted new news, and since your comment came with the old news, it goes with the old news, so basicly, every time I post new news, I delete all the other comments. ~VNinja ~ 16:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that your Wikiproject has not gained much publicity and I wonder if you would like to merge my Wikiproject with yours? Wikipedia: Wikiproject Paranormal Mahogany -wanna chat?
Heh, always thinking that I'll agree to your merge proposal, well, lucky for you, I do! So let's start discussing on how to do this. ~VNinja ~ 03:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC) u
Good idea, but let's vote on a new name so it an be a whole new wikiproject, not just two similar ones sharing one name, I think Wikipedia: Wikiproject unknown would be a good new name. ~VNinja ~ 15:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just joined up here and wanted to offer a suggestion. Template:Monster-stub seems..well, the name seems a little odd to me. Do any of you think that perhaps changing it to a cryptid stub might be more appropriate? Also, I came across your Paranormal accounts page, and it's not really very appropriate for an encyclopedia, even as a subpage of a wikiproject. You might want to consider moving the information there to Parawiki, and leaving a soft redirect to it in its place. -- InShaneee 21:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
While that may be true, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. I don't believe that anything in there will be able to pass that standard, unfortunatly. -- InShaneee 14:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
No, sorry, this was two different discussion. I'm just going to be moving Wikipedia:Wikiproject Paranormal/Paranormal Stories. -- InShaneee 17:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Need templates for UFO and Alien (extraterrestrial) w/ pixes. Martial Law 06:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC) :)
need one with a pix of a angel for angel related articles, such as the Angel article itself. Martial Law 04:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC) :)
I realy wanna help out here... but I have no idea what it is you want to have made. --- J.S ( t| c) 16:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
So you realy just want images then? I can't realy help you there chief. --- J.S ( t| c) 07:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I notice that this wikiproject has created quite a few stub templates, several of which are lacking categories (and as far as I know, none of which have been proposed. Wouldn't it perhaps be a better idea to have a single {{ paranormal-stub}} template, which by definition would have the right scope for your project, and avoid excessive fragmentation? Fine-grained categorisation you can still do via the "real" category system. Alai 00:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Lundse - I am skeptic, I have heard of no peer-reviewed nor reproducable experiments on paranormal phenomenon. On the contrary, there is still over 1,000,000$ up for anyone who can show any psychic, occult or otherwordly effects - no takers. I believe articles on the paranormal should be neutral, telling accurately what adherents believe and why - and why mainstream science (ie. applied common sense) does not buy into the phenomenon. Attempts to prove such phenomena should be reported, along with any methodological problems with these proofs.
That's a lie. The "Amazing Randi" is a fraud. If you bother to listen to him or read him closely, you'll learn that Randi has NO intention of allowing ANY objective third party to monitor any "research" that Randi pretends to conduct to validate anyone's claim regarding the paranormal. (I doubt that Randi even has $100K in the bank for any reason.) You're NOT a sceptic, you're a debunker. As the Amazing Randi, you have no intention of permitting honest inquiry. Leave us alone and get a life. StarHeart 22:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If you bothered to actually study the issue, you would know that it's NOT about Randi having the $$ or not, it's about the fact that Randi has NO intention of having ANY 3rd party to monitor ANY experiment regarding the paranormal. He wants to COMPLETELY control and monitor ANY experiment. What science credentials does Randi have? StarHeart 05:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation by Ramsay MacMullen, Harvard University Press, 1966, A classic study the supernatural within the ancient Roman empire
The challenges I listed were a good place to start being material for this topic. But apparently, some waste of space (a gremlin?) has self-assigned their meaningless self to sabotage our efforts and deleted my contributions. I assume it's their way of fabricating potent into their life. StarHeart 02:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you talkin' about me? I didn't do nothing to you! ~VNinja ~ 16:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete my comment? I am trying to help this project, having gotten involved with the astrology articles lately - I realize you may not agree with me, but that should be a reason to address our differences, not censor me out of the project. I would still very much like to know the opinions of other people involved, with regards to how paranormal phenomenon should be reported. Lundse 07:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Because your comments are NOT contributions. You're a debunker, not a sceptic. You're sabotaging the efforts of those with integrity who HAVE studied the topics of Astrology and the Paranormal. It's obvious your sole source of reference is the devious "Amazing Randi." Why don't you get a life and stick to the topics you actually have studied. News flash: not all opinions are facts, not even yours. Knowledge are opinions based upon experience. You have yet to reveal having ANY experience regarding Astrology or the Paranormal. There's more to life than books. The best books are based on EXPERIENCE. If you ever left your library you might learn that. StarHeart 05:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The only reason I deleted your comment was 'cause I posted new news, and since your comment came with the old news, it goes with the old news, so basicly, every time I post new news, I delete all the other comments. ~VNinja ~ 16:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that your Wikiproject has not gained much publicity and I wonder if you would like to merge my Wikiproject with yours? Wikipedia: Wikiproject Paranormal Mahogany -wanna chat?
Heh, always thinking that I'll agree to your merge proposal, well, lucky for you, I do! So let's start discussing on how to do this. ~VNinja ~ 03:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC) u
Good idea, but let's vote on a new name so it an be a whole new wikiproject, not just two similar ones sharing one name, I think Wikipedia: Wikiproject unknown would be a good new name. ~VNinja ~ 15:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just joined up here and wanted to offer a suggestion. Template:Monster-stub seems..well, the name seems a little odd to me. Do any of you think that perhaps changing it to a cryptid stub might be more appropriate? Also, I came across your Paranormal accounts page, and it's not really very appropriate for an encyclopedia, even as a subpage of a wikiproject. You might want to consider moving the information there to Parawiki, and leaving a soft redirect to it in its place. -- InShaneee 21:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
While that may be true, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. I don't believe that anything in there will be able to pass that standard, unfortunatly. -- InShaneee 14:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
No, sorry, this was two different discussion. I'm just going to be moving Wikipedia:Wikiproject Paranormal/Paranormal Stories. -- InShaneee 17:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Need templates for UFO and Alien (extraterrestrial) w/ pixes. Martial Law 06:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC) :)
need one with a pix of a angel for angel related articles, such as the Angel article itself. Martial Law 04:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC) :)
I realy wanna help out here... but I have no idea what it is you want to have made. --- J.S ( t| c) 16:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
So you realy just want images then? I can't realy help you there chief. --- J.S ( t| c) 07:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I notice that this wikiproject has created quite a few stub templates, several of which are lacking categories (and as far as I know, none of which have been proposed. Wouldn't it perhaps be a better idea to have a single {{ paranormal-stub}} template, which by definition would have the right scope for your project, and avoid excessive fragmentation? Fine-grained categorisation you can still do via the "real" category system. Alai 00:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)