User talk:Tom Butler/Tom Butler Talk Archive-1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tom Butler. 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. |
Welcome to wikipedia!
|
I replied...
To you at Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon#rewrite. ---J.S (t|c) 21:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
If you put the draft back on the temp page - I'll sort it out. Davkal 19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Tom Butler, I appreciate your hard-work and effort, but I find your assumption that I'm a "skeptic" to be slightly puzzling. I've conducted a small amount of EVP research myself and I wished to expand on an article that I had personal expertise in.
- It is truly a shame you couldn't format it for Wiki standards. Actually, wikipedia accepts HTML as well, so you could submit it in HTML if you were more comfortable with that.
- I do appreciate you uploading it to your website. Would you mind putting a note on the article about releasing it under the GFDL? I'd love to use parts of it, if you will still let me. ---J.S (t|c) 07:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
EVP Sound
With your permission, can I convert one of your EVP-example audio files to Ogg and release it here as GDFL? ---J.S (T/C) 22:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
COI
You should make yourself familiar with conflict of interest and proceed accordingly. Your edits at electronic voice phenomena especially should be carefully considered in light of this. --ScienceApologist 02:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Threat reported
I reported your threat here. --ScienceApologist 03:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Appreciate your comments
If you think that Spiritualism#Developments after the 1920s misrepresents current developments then please be bold and make some changes. I hope you would also consider doing some work on the Spiritualist Church article--many people have made small contributions to it, but it needs someone knowledgeable (like you) to straighten it out. You may also have noticed that we need an article for National Spiritualist Association of Churches. Anthon.Eff 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
Please do not edit Electronic voice phenomenon - since you are mentioned in the article and run a site mentioned, it is a conflict of interest for you to edit the article per WP:COI. Feel free to participate on the talk page. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Your edits to EVP.
Hello. three different cases on the AN/I, including [1], [2], and [3] brought me to your talk page after reviewing the issue in question. You have a clear conflict of interest, a WP:COI, if you are who you purport to be. Even if you aren't actually that person, your actions in aligning yourself with such a person's views represents equal COI, and as such, you should immediately cease and desist any and all edits to the EVP article. I recommend you instead use the page's talk page to provide sources and citation for edits you'd like other editors to consider makng to the page. If this is unacceptable, I recommend you leave the EVP pages entirely. Thank you. ThuranX 20:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You have now been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Discussion is done on the article talk page, not in edit summaries when you revert to your preferred version of an article. --InShaneee 22:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, please
This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. From: Yuser31415 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Please explain
What do you mean here?:
- "This is a pretty clear attempt at censorship. Wikipedia is a publicly supported 501(c)(3) organization and there may be questions of constitutional law concerning free speech. Are you sure you want to go down that path as you and your skeptic friends do everything you can to eliminate "proponents"?" Tom Butler 16:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC) [4]
On another note, you have a serious COI on the subject of EVP, and therefore you should be wary about commenting on the subject or editing the article, since you are a co-director of the AAEVP.
You also have a COI as regards Martin's essay, since it links to your site more than once. Just be careful. -- Fyslee/talk 20:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- The IRS has a number of rules concerning what a tax exempt organization is allowed to do. As I read them for the AA-EVP, they are designed to protect the public from the very organizations they fund. If Wikipedia does things that it has a self-determined right to do, but that violates a USA citizen's constitutional rights, it may be abusing its 501(c)(3) privileges.
- This is only an observation and not a threat,. as I have no wherewithal to mount such a legal challenge. I am sure there will never be enforcement of such a rule, if it exists, but there is a huge difference between controlling what is said in an article and what is said on a personal talk page. I can see no other way to describe deleting Martinphi's essay than as censorship.
- As for my COI, Having written books about metaphysics, you could argue that I have a COI for almost all paranormal subjects, if you insist on going that route. As a corollary, you would have had to ban Carl Sagan as well, since he wrote books on these subjects. Then there is the obvious conflict with the skeptics since they have a club with stated goals, and which their edits clearly try to meet.
- The skeptical editor's banning people such as myself from editing subjects that I have some expertise in has already forced me to make my point outside of Wikipedia. So not to worry, I am pretty much finish with Wikipedia. Tom Butler 16:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom
A case has been requested at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Paranormal and you have been named as a party. Your participation would be appreciated, thanks. --Minderbinder 14:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Your evidence in the arbitration
Tom, I believe you should try to cut down on the amount of information you are providing in the evidence part of the arbitration. If you add so much information that isn't clear and precise "difs" then the arbitrators will be more likely to overlook it. This arbitration is a conduct issue and not a content issue, so making an argument about how parapsychology should be treated is likely to be overlooked.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Kazuba's credentials
Lately I have been asked about my credentials by Dean Radin and his fans and probably others. Saying I have genuine curiousity just doesn't seem to satisfy them. This just seems to go over their heads. I don't worry about it. I'm used to it. So let me try this: I honestly seek knowledge and enjoy exploring, in detail, things that interest me. "But why, Grandpa?" Like Popeye says, "I yam what I yam." My school was, and still is, the school of hard knocks. Check my user page, which is occasionally updated, for any further information. User:Kazuba 10 May 2007
The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location. Dradin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. Kazuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 03:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Your userpage
Your userpage says that you're no longer functioning as an editor except for "Administrative" issues. However your contributions show that you've been contributing several times the past couple of days. You should probably consider changing that or updating it since it gives people the false impression that you are no longer functioning and can't be contacted here. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Dreadstar RfA
Tom,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 55 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to vote in my nomination. I'm a new admin, so if you have any suggestions feel free to let me know. I would like to give a special shout out to Fang Aili, Phaedriel, and Anonymous Dissident, for their co-nominations. Thank you all!
This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's modification of Phaedriel's RFA thanks.
Thanks for your support! I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by stealing borrowing someone else's card design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! Dreadstar † 07:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 15:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
*sigh*
Look, I suppose you may not have read carefully, but I did carefully explain why I said the things I did on that page about Martinphi. People who have repeatedly say that NO criticism should be allowed in an article are cranks, whatever side they're on, and Martinphi was claiming "The vast majority of the editors on the talk page are arguing that the article is POV" - which is what I said was deluded. Finally, although perhaps I didn't say this, several editors in WP:TIMETRACE were going around creating patent nonsense, OR articles, and when checkusered because their writing was similar, were discovered to all be using open proxies, which is not allowed. Adam Cuerden talk 00:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think I understand. Your first comments seemed to be painted with a pretty broad brush. I tend to go overboard defending the "proponent" view because I feel it is under represented, the skeptical community is pretty zealous about their conservative views and I am doing everything I can to conduct legitimate research in the field of what I refer to as "etheric studies." On the other hand, just as we have to follow the evidence in research, so do we have to have an even hand in editing. I apologize if I assumed too much. Tom Butler 02:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Spiritualist church
Tom, glad to see you back. WP has a way of allowing neophytes to chase away experts. Good to see a case where the expert stands fast. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Anthon, thanks for the input. I am chased more by other duties than by determined editors. I will admit that I am a little uncomfortable saying how Spiritualism is, because I know I am a technical metaphysician and think of Spiritualism as an empirical study while the average Spiritualist approaches the subject as a choice of lifestyle and belief. Tom Butler (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Conversation at EVP
Hate to duck out in the middle of a conversation, but I've got to get back to my wiki-break. If you need me to respond to anything, please shoot me an email. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Spiritualism
Whew! It's the Dunning-Kruger effect that sometimes makes work in WP so difficult! I've asked an administrator who specializes in move-related issues to take a look at our problem (User_talk:Dekimasu#Spiritualism). He is apparently on vacation, so it might take some time before this is resolved. If you have any further thoughts, please let me know. I have a link to my email via a userbox on my user page. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
List of Spiritualist organizations
- I am looking for, thinking of starting a list of spiritualist organization starting in the first place with those that consist of the main body of the Modern Spiritualist movement.
- Putting aside cutting condescensions about "people who have little knowledge think that they know more than others who have much more knowledge" to quote Anthon (which is what Dunning-Kruger effect means), have you seen one or would you be willing to contribute to one? Thanks.
- I'd rather work on productively and dig out the academic citations.
- I have taken the topic from the Great War to WWII and added a short piece about the segue into the New Age. I also added some of the feminist elements which I think there is the material to grown into a stand alone topic.
- I am missing post-WWII to the early mid-70s which, from experience (SNU, SAG, Greater World) I would class as the decline of Spiritualism proper to be followed by its increasing commercialization and diffusion away from the core beliefs. My experience is also not of the America side but I do not think we should ignore developments in either Latin or Asian countries. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I regret to say that it is difficult to contribute to Wikipedia with my current workload in the AA-EVP, so I will be of only slight assistance. Also, as said before, my interest is not in the history and I will yield to better informed/interested editors. My litmus test is whether or not I can find NSAC Spiritualism in the article. I expect other forms to be represented, but as the articles were a few weeks ago, I could not find the NSAC view represented while the article seemed to imply that all Spiritualist groups conformed to the article.
- I do not like the phrase movement, but my biggest concern with the current situation is that the article move was made without consensus and under the cover of dictionaries. A good example of how that approach is flawed is how the Spiritualists define themselves as a philosophy and not a religion, yet they acknowledge that they practice Spiritualism. I have not found room for such distinctions in dictionaries.
- The determination that the dictionary was a superior reference is likely a good example of whatever that D-K effect is, but because this is Wikipedia, I can expect nothing better. Progress often comes from change so I will complain no more. Tom Butler (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Spiritualism small
Template:Spiritualism small has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
NSAC
Hi Tom,
I put up a topic page on the NSAC, please check. It is good enough to stick as it but see if you can add to it.
It could be tidied up a bit but I need support from others as my time is limited ... you know the rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Spiritualist_Association_of_Churches
You might also see;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Hull
Thanks. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- "cut and paste" ... just give the game away, hey? Actually, it was an hour's worth of cut and paste, copyedit and format from a number of sources actually. I am sorry if it is not good enough.
- Its your, or another NSAC's sponsor's opener, really to go through and beef up as they see fit. I actually know nothing about the subject but felt it ought be included for the sake of a fullest picture. Refs and citations please.
- What would be good is if someone at the seminary could give permission for, and upload, pictures to be used to illustrate it. Can you do that, or email someone? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I apologies if I gave you the impression that the article is not good enough. I was trying to say that it was straight information that, as you say, is what the NSAC has on the website. I think you did a good job of culling information to produce an informative article that is pretty much devoid of emotional content.
- I did send a message to various people in the NSAC who might be able to entice potential editors to review the article. As I said in the past, I am not very interested in the history and I tend to be too much of a technical metaphysician to be a reliable critic of a church article. I say etheric entity, they say spiritual being. (I have always wanted the NSAC to have two forms of ordination--one for pastor and one for scientist-philosopher. Maybe when the church finishes its "religious movement." :-) ) Tom Butler (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Spiritualism
We may be back to ordinary civil editing now that Lucy has been blocked indefinitely (User_talk:Lucyintheskywithdada#Blocked). I initiated a request to move Spiritualism (religious movement) back to Spiritualism, and I hope you respond to the survey at Talk:Spiritualism#Requested_move.
You've raised a number of good points that the article will need to address. I still think that a focus on the history between the 1840s and the 1920s is the only way to keep the article encyclopedic--when contemporary practice is introduced, everyone wants to write about their personal beliefs and these are so diverse that Spiritualism begins to look like a religion where anything goes. In addition, skeptics and Christians tend to jump in with criticisms when one talks about contemporary practice. I think the present structure works best, where post-1930 developments are discussed at the end, with links to articles that tackle specific aspects. It shows how contemporary developments are related to the past and helps put some structure on the diversity of contemporary Spiritualism.
By the way, have you ever been tempted to work on the Survivalism (life after death) article? It could use some attention. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Civility
With regard to your comments on User talk:Randy Blackamoor: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- At the risk of being blocked for my comments here, I must say that you have missed the point of my comment to User talk:Randy Blackamoor. My comment was, in fact, on content. I asked for advice at [5] and the first response was from him: "You are an "active researcher" on the topic of whether ghosts live in my tape recorder? I guess we'd better do what you say! Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)" Since that was essentially a sarcastic remark that added nothing to the discussion, I felt it would be productive to ask him to stop to his face. As it turned out, the other commenting editors basically agree with him, so I suppose I need to find an admin for advice. Do you agree with him as well? Tom Butler (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- You told Randy "If you have no constructive comments, then please do not interfere" which combines two inappropriate acts in one: you failed to WP:AGF by implying that his comments were not intended constructively, and you asked him not to "interfere" which contravenes WP:OWN not to mention Wikipedia's fundamental principle that anyone can edit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good faith assumes good intention. His comments being in good faith is something of a stretch, but if you say so. As it turned out, that particular effort to seek advice turned out to be pretty much an encounter with skeptics who were in agreement that rude was good Wiki practice so long as it concerned a "fringe" subject. If you call that good faith, then will make the appropriate note to self. Tom Butler (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Tom's post which said:
If you have no constructive comments, then please do not interfere with this effort to find a peaceful resolution to a serious breach of social and academic etiquette. Tom Butler (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
was not uncivil or a breach of AGF, because Randy Blackamoor had must said this:
You are an "active researcher" on the topic of whether ghosts live in my tape recorder? I guess we'd better do what you say! Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[6]
And compounded it with:
Serious? We are on a website where people play a game in which they pretend to be encyclopedia editors, that is devoted mostly to making lists of where silverware has been referenced in Family Guy and arguing over which picture of feces to use, talking to a guy who believes in ghosts, until I get banned for pointing out that water doesn't have the ability to remember which molecules it has come into contact with. I can't think of anything less academic or less serious than this. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Which I also independently thought was highly uncivil and unconstructive and inflamatory. This one-sided warning was inappropriate. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding future WQA, AE, etc. posts
When reporting a user at WP:WQA, WP:AE and other noticeboards, in the future, please let the other party know of the report by leaving a notice on their talk page. This is not out of courtesy, but of a requirement. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 14:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Tom, I have read your explanation on the ScienceApologist AE thread about being unaware of the requirement to notify when making reports. Given the number of notifications you have received above, it is surprising that it did not occur to you that making such a request was (at least) courteous, especially having made no direct comment on the talk page where SA had posted his remark. However, I accept your explanation, and would like to strongly endorse seicer's comment above, and also to advise that you make a point in future to read the procedures at the top of pages such as AE, WQA, ANI etc when making a first report. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your point is acknowledged and I already apologized. Why do I get the sense that I am seen as the one who insulted SA. I had previously stopped posting on the page that he used to insult me and felt that posting to challenge him would only start a fight as it has in the past. I have seen no remedy for the accusation of my falsifying aaevp.com, so I would appreciate it if you stop reminding me that there is no expectation of protection from abusive editors in Wikipedia. Tom Butler (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- In answer to the question "Why do I get the sense that I am seen as the one who insulted SA" the fact that you called SA a "sociopath"[8] may have something to do with it, though perhaps there are other issues that I'm unaware of. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Arritt, as an admin, I'm glad you take a fair tone. I'm glad you warned Tom above for incivility relative to Randy Blackamoor, and that you warned him for calling SA a sociopath after SA called TB a moron and a liar. I am especially glad that you also gave Randy Blackamoor a warning for his rudeness and inflamatory attack on Butler at WTA [9][10]. Oh- I see it was another user who warned him, and it wasn't about his incivility to TB. But you also warned Randy, saying:
Randy, please remember that on Wikipedia civility matters more than content. That's frustrating, but if you don't play the game by the rules you're handing aggressive promoters of nonsense an advantage that they don't deserve. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
and about this [11] you said:
I wouldn't consider Randy's comments uncivil, but simply an honest and forthright appraisal of the situation. Of course nowadays such an approach is actionable as "incivility." The rules are that we must pretend those who aggressively and tendentiously promote nonsense are acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. Those who don't want to play by those rules should get off the field. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 02:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC) [13]
Thank you, Raymond. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that you have apologised, and I certainly did not mean to suggest to you that you insulted SA by making a report, but rather that notifying the object of the report is essential. If you look at my most recent post on the WP:AE thread, you will see that I have concluded that SA's block is justified. My objection was based on the belief that there was a lack of procedural fairness because SA was not notified of your concern, and so the delay in refactoring was not his fault - it was not because I thought that SA's "moron" comment was acceptable. Now that I understand John Vandenberg's action was based on the ArbCom restriction and that the timing of refactoring is irrelevant - and thus your own notification error did not result in a failure of natural justice for SA - I have changed my view on the block. In addition, the WP:DR process is supposed to assist to ensure that abuse is addressed - my post above is simply encouraging you to use it carefully to ensure fairness for all sides in a dispute. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Note: edit conflict
- Yes, JayJay is right on the procedure. And Tom, from a friend, saying what you think on wiki is non-productive. It wouldn't matter whether SA is murdering children and bragging about it- calling him a sociopath is uncivil, no matter what he called you. Just use the channels provided. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
MartinPhi, Of course you are right and I had no business calling SA a sociopath. I will not do it again. I am also sorry to see that you are stepping back from Wikipedia. I certainly understand and am only a few paragraphs behind you.
First: After making an honest attempt to ask what to do (and sure, making my own suggestions as best case) at [14], I received responses from six people, four of which can be summed up as get over it and it is okay to call a person a moron if you believe he or she is one for believing something you do not:
- "I guess we'd better do what you say!" by Randy Blackamoor
- "My advice to you would be to not be so thin-skinned." by Filll
- "I believe that SA was commenting on those who believe in EVP/ITC ... It lacks first-rate sources, and SA's analysis is pretty much dead-on (sans the comment regarding morons). by Seicer
- "If someone is trying to introduce a source by people who lack in intelligence or sanity on a equal basis as sources like The New York Times then the comment goes to address a concern about the reliability of the proposed sources." by Anynobody
So I will admit, being a good engineer, I wanted to test how evenly this policy would be applied, so I posted SA's further comment calling me a liar and said, "If I am not mistaking, that is a sign of a sociopath ... but then I would not want to assume your implied approval of insulting people I disagree with."
A look at my talk page here, and at SA's and I think it is obvious that the editor's indignation about name calling is not being evenly applied. Looking at edits around Wikipedia, it is clear that the "fringe" is widely considered a problem to be managed as if paranormal articles pose some threat to society. That is exactly the mentality of the dark ages that gave us the flat earth and man at the center of the universe.
Second: It is repeatedly said that SA struck (refactored?) the offending comment, but the closest thing to a real retraction was the one line: "I apologized, struckthrough the comment, and am trying to move on. What more do you want from me? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)." I have not seen the apology, and see that SA is still of that mind. At [15] he used the line: "Martinphi seems to be under the impression that Wikipedia can serve as an "in-universe" clearinghouse for the beliefs of paranormal sycophants. ..." He quickly changed "sycophant" to "promoters," but your insistence that refactoring is proof of remorse is nonsense.
Third: SA went on to say that I lied in ... well I guess the entire aaevp.com. See [16]. He has not struck that out, it is libelous and the only comment I have seen on it was from DanielEng
- "...As for the second, that he should offer proof, that's a content issue and has no place here. Not to mention that as the person providing the source, as per WP:PROVEIT, the onus is on you to prove that it is credible; it's not on other editors to prove that it isn't. You're welcome to bring it to the reliable sources noticeboard if you'd like to see if it is verifiable and can be accepted as a legitimate source or not. With all due respect, it seems as though you want SA to continue to be chastised over and over again. He's apologized, he's been admonished, and at this point, it's time to drop it and move on with your editing. at [17]
So I am being told that it is my responsibility to go on the EVP talk page and prove that the contents at aaevp.com are not fictitious. I can but I will not spend the time because it will not change the attitude that it is fringe, original research and/or unverifiable, while publications such as e New York Times are accepted, even though they often quote people speaking way out of their discipline. Being a past member of Mensa, holding a BSEEE and once holding a top secret clearance with the US Air Force, I can also prove that I am not a moron. I take being called a liar very seriously and can only conclude by the lack of reaction from other editors that the "tyranny of the majority" is alive and well in Wikipedia.
There is little sense in responding further. I will join the many others who have been run off by the SAs of Wikipedia. Tom Butler (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Tom, as you are now aware, WP:WQA is controversial. I didn't realise how much until I read the deletion suggestion - haven't been at WQA much - so I suggest there is a broader context for you to consider in how your report was received. As for DanielEng's response, I think you have misinterpretted. DE is saying that you have to prove the site is reliable to use it as a reference in an article - hence the reference to content dispute. He does not mean that you have to defend your own off-wiki work. The RS noticeboard to which he refers helps out on content, and would not be the place for you to address concerns about SA's comment - but it could be useful if you can get support for the site to be used as a reference in the EVP article. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Interview
Care to be interviewed for broadcast Tom? I think we would like to have you. Are you available? [18]. Although it is easiest if you have a headset, or less preferable, speakers and a microphone, if someone is a subscriber to Skype and a bit more expert, it can be done with a telephone (I presume you are in the US or Canada?).--Filll (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like you all are doing good work over there. I like the approach.
- I decline the invitation for now. Thank you for asking, though. Tom Butler (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok since you are a bit shy about your voice, how about this? Why not have you listen live to one of these programs (without you talking) and then when there is a point you want to make, or a question you want answered, you could respond by IM (instant messenger)? At that point, someone could then read out your response (or comment). What do you think?--Filll (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is not my being shy. As a director of an organization, it is important that I present myself in a way that is a credit to our members and the community. I try to be a role model for critical thinking and such, and if I am seen to be too strident, then I will hurt that purpose. Wikipedia is a testy environment to work in and I know some of the participating editors would just as soon have things paranormal banned. I have attempted to keep my edits behind a firewall of time, so that I can review what I am publishing to self-sensor. (I didn't do that the other day and looked like a fool.) so I decline because of the need to avoid the possibility that I might get into an argument, rather than a discussion. I hope you understand my perception of danger, even if it is mislead. Tom Butler (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Vegetarian edits
Thanks Tom. I saw that yesterday, and thank you for your general comment on the subject over at the R for Arbitration.(oops) I have no reason to comment since the accusation is so unfounded as to be absurd. I have been on articles where Martin is, and I do support the editor. He is often lined up against a tough crowd. There is a big difference between supporting the editor and supporting his edits, and I doubt that Martin wants that kind of support, since I believe he makes great efforts to be neutral as do I. Actually Martin and I from what I can remember actually sometimes disagree. With even a little more than a superficial glance at my edits and discussion, it will be obvious, to anyone really interested , I hope that I edit, neutrally.... sheesh...and who could be interested.(olive (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
Worsening the situation
You comments in general about the situation with SA and Martin have been uncivil, insulting and inflammatory. I, for example, reverted your message to my talk page about "cyborg editors", which is a tamer example of the rhetoric you have been using. Please stop. It is not helpful to the situation and you will be blocked if your persist. Vassyana (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- SA is bragging about how his computer program exempts him from having a rational to revert an edit. I think the term I used is both humorous and pretty much right on. We would have a serious problem if all of us used such a tool.
- I trust you have not hidden that page because of my posts. They are all true and demonstrate SA's lack of regard for the policies of Wikipedia and the editors attempting to make Wikipedia work. In my experience, Martainphi's reaction to SA's disregard is what you are punishing him for. Should I just ignore what you are doing?
- I must add that protecting him from my comments might appear to him to be making his policy de facto Wikipedia policy.Tom Butler (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I do not agree with his decision, but this is certainly not the right way to go about it. Regardless of anyone else's behavior, you must be polite and refrain from insults. You are welcome to contribute to discussions. However, using alarmist, insulting, rude or otherwise plainly unacceptable language or tactics is not tolerable. If you cannot refrain from using such a tone, please refrain from commenting entirely. Vassyana (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I accept your censor. My tone is something I have learned from SA and his friends. Using the Golden Rule, I assumed that is how he wants to be addressed. An example of aggressive people winning the point is here [19] where QuackGuru is defending the incorrect use of a word, I suppose to remind the reader that it is all paranormal. When I do not respond, the unnecessary term will remain. Looking now, I see that Martin tried that the other day and was quickly reverted by SA (his new toy, I suppose.)
- PS: I really should not contribute to any of the paranormal articles beyond things like logical errors and such because I am involved in one [http;aaevp.com] and am a Spiritualist. So I focus mostly on consensus and helping others who are trying to keep things at least reasonable. You nearly banned the last one who is doing so. Tom Butler (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Explanation: My editing of your user page was a BIG mistake. I thought I was leaving my message on your DISCUSSION page. Ooppps. I apologize for my human error. The supposed attack: Mr Radin did not like me bringing up his quitting or dismissal or what ever it was from UNLV in his WIKI entry. I gave all sides. He called it selective history. Even though it didn't seem to bother him when he spoke about it in an interview. In fact if I remember correctly, he joked about it. It was not meant as an attack. It was just something that interested me and part of his history. [You got all upset because I brought up Allison DuBois. It was added just because it was Dr. Schwartz's first experiment. No other reason.] I am just honestly curious. Only yesterday did I learn of the Schwartz-DuBois misunderstanding. To me it seems to be some kind of silly mix up. I could care less about it. But I guess something should be mentioned about it somewhere. I'll leave that to someone else. I prefer experiments, what is going on here, and what makes people think the way they do. I find the study of parapsychology interesting and fun but like most psychologists I certainly do not see it controversial. The accurate records of experiments and the solving of problems due to subjectivity have a long long way to go. Kazuba (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)