ParanormalHope

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cal Cooper (December 13)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cal Cooper.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! TKK public _{(Bark at me \\ Block this account if it's acting funny!)} 00:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

ParanormalHope, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi ParanormalHope!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there! Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cal Cooper (January 12)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cal Cooper.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! ParanormalHope, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Cal Cooper (Psychologist).jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Cal Cooper (Psychologist).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cal Cooper concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cal Cooper, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cal Cooper

Hello ParanormalHope. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Cal Cooper".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cal Cooper}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We present the mainstream views, not the fringe views

Per policies such as WP:UNDUE and WP:V, we present content in the manner it is seen and presented by the mainstream academics. Parapsychology is seen as a pseudoscience at best by mainstream academia and so that is how we present it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Please stop inserting your opinion in Parapsychology and edit warring to restore it. See TheRedPenOfDoom's note above. Stop reverting and try to get consensus for your changes on the talkpage, or you may be blocked from editing. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC).

Given that I work in parapsychology, I can quite easily tell you that the corrections made are 100% accurate. The views expressed on parapsychology are based on references to main stream cynical views, by people not involved in the science. Please stop changing the parapsychology page to egregious statements and inaccurate facts.

When you get your 100% accurate claims published in a reliable source, then we can talk about representing them in the article. Until then, we follow the current reliably published sources validate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No study can produce 100% accurate claims in any science. My comment above was regarding the facts of the matter. With regards the studies why should you be the one to decide where a study must be published for it to be taken seriously? This is why so many students are told not to look on Wikipedia due to such misrepresentation. The sources published disregarding parapsychology are not accurate or reliable.

Wikipedia doesn't take Wikipedia as a reliable source so there is no skin off our nose that others don't. But they certainly would not take Wikipedia as a good source if we presented the lunatic fringe that in a hundred years has not been able to provide a coherent theory of why "parapsychology" should/could work nor replicable experiments showing that it does on equal ground with mainstream science . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your comment in itself shows that you are not familiar with the literature or findings. I don't have to be psychologist to see you've already got prior views and opinions. This shows that Wikipedia will never change its content not matter what.

Wikipedia is a work in progress and everything is changing. The article on Parapsychology can and will change as well. It will not, however, change to present parapsychology as anything other the pseudoscience until the reliably published sources actually present parapsychology as anything other than pseudoscience. And given the hundred plus years that parapsychologist have had to develop valid hypothesis and test and confirm the same and the complete lack of any such repeatable confirmations, I am skeptical that anything will change in that direction any time soon. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ever day I work in this field its my full time job, so I work closely with the research published in parapsychology specific journals and journals outside of its field (what you're calling the mainstream). How can you say the comments above while obviously refusing to read the evidence which goes completely against the statements you are making? I have seen no such evidence for the statements you are making (which do not match other sciences) - just opinion, and that is not science. One such confirmed hypothesis for psi conducive states showing repeated effects are through ASCs, the past five studies I was involved in regarding Remote Viewing showed only significant results for the ASC method - as it had done previously. The references for this cynicism on Wikipedia appear to be based on modern cynical opinion, rather that 1st hand sources of research. Where are you getting all of this from?... To any scientist who has read into the research (and is not necessarily in the field of parapsychology), this page is just painful read due to so such inaccuracies. I can understand that it seems correct to you from what you've read on these 'pseudoscience' ideas, why should you think anything different if you're only exposing yourself to a single 'opinion'. I'd welcome you to have a skype chat about this, or even visit one of our university departments.

Your recent editing history at Parapsychology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, ParanormalHope, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)