Content deleted Content added
Tom Butler (talk | contribs) →Autoconfirm: reply |
Tom Butler (talk | contribs) Back to work |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Out numbered by masked editors with way too much time on their hands and no social skills== |
|||
==Hello== |
|||
If you need to contact me, the email feature works here or please use the [http://ethericstudies.org/contact.htm contact Tom Butler] tool on my personal website. [[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]] ([[User talk:Tom Butler#top|talk]]) 17:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks for clarifying that my source is actually acceptable. (: [[User:Vkdh|Vkdh]] ([[User talk:Vkdh|talk]]) 04:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I have links on my personal page to a few pertinent arbitration cases that may be helpful. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Principles Paranormal] one provides a more balanced view of types of references that are acceptable. The ruling is not definitive, leaving room for interpretation which will be controlled by the dominant editor group. |
|||
:The ASPSI journal is not peer reviewed but it is an independent one that speaks to a wide community of interest. As I read the ruling, the intent is to provide the best available references to support a point. Using the journal as a reference for a definition and explanation of a commonly used system of classification should be noncontroversial, and as I read it, acceptable within the paranormal ruling. |
|||
:The journal would not be an acceptable source of a quote to establish the validity of the subject. |
|||
:Again, it all depends on how aggressive the Skeptical editors feel at the moment. Some of them are very protective of the article's point of view. [[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]] ([[User talk:Tom Butler#top|talk]]) 18:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Hi == |
|||
Sorry to bother you, and no need to reply unless you want, but there are a few recent threads on my talk page which mention you and which you might be interested in, particularly where I just posted a reply to Kww. <span style="color:Red; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]] ([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 00:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank you for the notice. Kww is right in that I don't get it, but he should not think of me as an editor. I depend on my reputation to help readers have a sense of how to value what I say. That is a necessary standard practice if reliable information is to be exchanged. If I say something that is stupid or mean-spirited, I expect it to have negative affect on my reputation. At the same time, some people simply do not like me or what I say. That is also normal. When dealing with screen names, I do not know who they are or their qualifications. When they are mean-spirited, as Kww and SA have been toward me on many occasions, I have no choice but to fight back or leave. If I am outnumbered, as I always am, and if they have the ear of management, which they definitely do, then I can only leave. |
|||
:Wikipedia has a profound influence, especially on the paranormal subjects I study. I can ignore that influence or I can attempt to deal with it, which is one of my duties as direct of the ATransC (was AA-EVP). An obvious approach to informing my readers about how Wikipedia is hindering our ability to study these subjects is to explain how articles are written. We do that in context and with references as we would any dissertation. My explaining that an editor has unilaterally called EVP noise or has called me (and people in my field) waccos by providing a reference, and if that reference includes the name of the author, which it is supposed to, then I am not attacking that author. |
|||
:This whole issue of my user page has been about people saying things, my pointing that out and then those people crying about how I am attacking them. The one still positive thing about Wikipedia is that it is a public forum with a long memory. It is mostly controlled by virtual people saying whatever they please. The social norms developed amongst the editors makes insults and lies okay so long as it is toward the minority. They should not be dismayed by our complaints. |
|||
:Once again, thanks for the notice. I know that many editors want Wikipedia to be an agent for positive change. I would not have spent so long trying to make that so if I did not want the same. There are many problems with paranormal subjects, but Wikipedia is not the elected agent to fix them. All the articles should do is tell what the subject is about, not if it is right or not. (By the way, I see Nealparr's [[template:paranormal]] is all about telling what is wrong with Wikipedia and that makes social engineering apparent policy; however, I will address my concerns with that outside of Wikipedia. [[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]] ([[User talk:Tom Butler#top|talk]]) 18:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Your feedback on my Spiritualism edit == |
|||
Hi, |
|||
Based on your feedback I've changed the wording about the Spiritualists' Principles - please have a look. |
|||
[[User:Adrian-from-london|Adrian-from-london]] ([[User talk:Adrian-from-london|talk]]) 19:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Any advice or comments on recent edits on the faith healing page? == |
|||
::Hi, |
|||
::You've recently commented on my talk page so I hope you don't object to me seeking help. As noted in the edit history of the Faith Healing page, there have been a number of edits of the Spiritual Healing section (moved from the Esoteric Energy page). Any advice you can offer which helps me make the best use of time and resources would be very useful. |
|||
::Many thanks, |
|||
::[[User:Adrian-from-london|Adrian-from-london]] ([[User talk:Adrian-from-london|talk]]) 21:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
The first concern is that spiritual healing as practiced in Spiritualism is not faith healing. The two are distinct in that faith healing admittedly depends on the person's faith in prayer for intercession of divine will. In spiritual healing, and all of the modalities depend on the operation of subtle energy such as therapeutic touch, distance healing, Rekie and such. In that regard, the statement in the opening that: ''"Healing based on faith is also used by practitioners of other beliefs and religious heritages. Efforts at healing by Therapeutic Touch [5] and distance healing practices such as those practiced by practitioners of Japanese tradition of Reiki and the Chinese tradition of qigong would fall in this category."'' is incorrect, as success or failure of the practice has nothing to do wit the faith of the receiver. |
|||
In Spiritualism, healing is seen as two distinct forms. One is flat out energy healing and is thought to be the influence of one person's auric or vital energy on another (subtle energy). Mesmerism may have been a precursor to that view in modern times, but I think there is danger in associating with that. Keeping to modern times, it is the psi influence of one person thought of good will on another. There is no faith involved, only practiced expression of intention. |
|||
The second form of healing in Spiritualism, the one practiced to prove continuity of life, is specifically spiritual healing or healing by the expression of intention by our friends in the etheric ("spirits" in the vernacular) as facilitated by a medium. When I approach a sitter in my healing chair, I will probably touch them and intend that my vitality be available to them, but if our understanding of energy healing is correct, touch or proximity is not really necessary. I will ask my friends and helpers with whom I commune to use me as a clear and open channel for the expression of their energy, ability and intention for my sitter ... for his or her "highest good." Believe me, the faith involved is secondary. It is a practiced ability to manage energy and accept communion with other entities that makes this work. |
|||
Of course all of this needs current references that are acceptable. Stability of a wiki article depends on references that skeptics and cranks cannot dispute. That means that there is usually a lot of compromising terminology. For the benefit of Spiritualism, it may be better to say as little as possible. |
|||
I would avoid using reference 31. The term “Shaman” pretty much replaced “Witchdoctor” as people become more familiar with the practices. Witchdoctor is Hollywood. While the witches were being burned in Europe, oriental practitioners were developing all sorts of energy healing techniques without being called witches. |
|||
''“healing therapies were based on a body, spirit or mind basis rather than the Holistic approach previously adopted.”'' This is kind of double talk. Body, mind and spirit is the holistic approach. |
|||
''“but this sensation could also derive from the heat radiating from the healers' body.”'' Is a criticism that should be in a separate section. |
|||
::From the article: |
|||
'''Spiritualism and spiritual healing''' |
|||
[[Spiritualism]] is a system of belief which holds as a tenet the belief that contact is possible between the living and the spirits of the dead. Spiritualists practice a form of energy healing referred to as [http://nsac.org/Healing.aspx?id=3.0 “spiritual healing”], which may be a form of energy healing between the practitioner and the sitter. More commonly, the practitioner is seen as a conduit through which healers in the etheric may being healing energy to the sitter. This is seen as spiritual healing and it involves a cooperating “healer” in spirit, a person to receive the healing energy and a spiritual healer, who is the medium though which the healing energy is directed. Spiritualists may combine spiritual healing with conventional medical therapies. |
|||
'''Spiritual healing''' is based on the belief that a healer is able to channel healing energy into the person seeking help by different methods.[30] |
|||
[[Shamanism]] can be considered an early form of Spiritual Healing in that a belief in spirits was incorporated into healing practices. |
|||
It is claimed that this "healing energy" may sometimes be perceived as a feeling of heat[32]. Spiritual healing is listed on the website of the charity Macmillan Cancer Support, where it is classified as a "mind therapy". Macmillan say that healing "may be able to help people feel better and reduce symptoms or emotional distress ... or ... reduce side effects caused by cancer treatment."[30] Unlike faith healing, the religion of the patient or healer is not considered relevant.[32] |
|||
:These are just points to consider. I would try to have a separate article for spiritual healing. There will never be a foundation in science for faith healing because it is so subjective. However, spiritual healing is being studied see: http://atransc.org/articles/research_in_news.htm [[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]] ([[User talk:Tom Butler#top|talk]]) 01:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Paranormal website == |
|||
Hi, |
|||
I thought you'd be interested in this [http://aprilslaughter.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/its-not-what-we-thought/ article]. |
|||
Regards, [[User:Adrian-from-london|Adrian-from-london]] ([[User talk:Adrian-from-london|talk]]) 00:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:From what we understand, that kind of communication is very rare. The "probe" sounds like something [http://www.digitaldowsing.com/products/ Digital Dowsing] would come up with. Most of their devices detect changes in the ambient electrical or EMF to either select words from a library or trigger a speech synthesizer. Otherwise, I do not know. |
|||
:There is a norm of effectiveness in Instrumental TransCommunication that, while there are no rules about how good communication might be, extraordinary communication necessarily raises flags. One of the things that is becoming apparent is that faith in technology makes devices excellent crutches for other forms of phenomena. See http://atransc.org/articles/presi-bacci.htm. Bacci does work with EVP but is clearly function as a physical medium. Instead of using a trumpet as a crutch for an ectoplasmic voice box to produce direct voice, he is using a radio. We have seen this in a number of instances, but they are very rare and often the practitioner is unaware that it is not EVP. Still very astounding, but studied with a slightly different yardstick. |
|||
:Thanks for the link. I will keep an eye out. [[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]] ([[User talk:Tom Butler#top|talk]]) 18:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Book on Wikipedia == |
|||
Hello Tom - as you can see from my edit trail I am writing a book on Wikipedia, some of which deals with the struggles over 'science' and 'pseudoscience'. Would you be happy to talk to me about this, either on your talk page here or by email? I am primarily trying to understand why people edit these subjects, given that it seems (to me) like a painful experience. I have looked at the histories of editors like Martinphi (now blocked I think) and ScienceApologist (ditto). Let me know. [[User:Hestiaea|Hestiaea]] ([[User talk:Hestiaea|talk]]) 18:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Swiss report == |
|||
Don't use a wikipedia page to soapbox or as a forum. Also here is a small tip, when you soapbox about a report, read it first. "As regards the second project, in the view of the authors of the meta-analyses, the available placebo-controlled studies on homeopathy do not demonstrate any clear effect over and above placebo". [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 12:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:I will say here what I just said on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pseudoscience#How_do_we_know_pseudoscience_has_become_science.3F Pseudoscience talk page] |
|||
:The question still stands: how does Wikipedia know when a field of study is no longer considered pseudoscience. The subject needs to be addressed here since it is this article that is used to condemn field of study. |
|||
:IRWolfie, of course, this is not a soapbox. However, I wonder if what is and is not soapbox material is in the eyes of the beholder. Are you uncomfortable with discussing possible changes of status of field of study --any field--? |
|||
PS: Your tone: ''"Don't use a wikipedia page to soapbox or as a forum."'' just pisses people off! [[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]] ([[User talk:Tom Butler#top|talk]]) 18:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Your question is not directly related to article content. The talkpage is for the editors to discuss changes to an article. I have no desire to talk to you beyond an editing capacity. Read [[WP:NOT#FORUM]]. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 10:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::If you ''"have no desire to talk to you beyond an editing capacity,"'' then stay out of the discussion. I already know you have nothing useful to add. [[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]] ([[User talk:Tom Butler#top|talk]]) 17:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::Your edits have no direct bearing to the article. Continue to post off topic soapboxing and general complaints in the talk page and I will have no choice but to escalate things. This is not the place for it, try [[WP:FTN]] if you really wish to argue about wikipedia policy in relation to fringe. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 17:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
I agree that it is time to "escalate things," but I simply do not have the time. I have noted that you are acting more as a gatekeeper than as a constructive editor. Should I encounter your wall in the future, i will make the time.[[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]] ([[User talk:Tom Butler#top|talk]]) 18:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
=Good example of wiki lawyering= |
|||
== [[WP:FRINGE]] == |
|||
Please familiarise yourself with [[WP:FRINGE]], [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:GIVAL]]. [[User:Barney the barney barney|Barney the barney barney]] ([[User talk:Barney the barney barney|talk]]) 17:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
I have! The article is biased! [[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]] ([[User talk:Tom Butler#top|talk]]) 18:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:No you haven't. New users do not just turn up on Sheldrake's page. Be careful it's hot. Unsurprisingly, we've had these arguments before. Read ''everything'' at the top of [[talk:Rupert Sheldrake]], get some experience at editing, don't edit war, and you might be more respected. [[User:Barney the barney barney|Barney the barney barney]] ([[User talk:Barney the barney barney|talk]]) 18:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{ping|Barney the barney barney}}, Tom has been around here since at least 2006, and is an experienced edit warrior, so he can be held responsible. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 19:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::That didn't take long BullRangifer. :-)[[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]] ([[User talk:Tom Butler#top|talk]]) 22:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::Despite your long experience, Barney's advice about reading the whole page is good advice. --[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the dog]] ([[User talk:Roxy the dog|quack quack]]) 23:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
I understand and have perused it a little. In my experience, editors agreeing on a bad edit does not improve the edit. Read the article as it will be read by a website visitor. What do you want people to come away with? Is it to be support for many people's rather public contention that skeptical editors are not to be trusted with the facts [http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/the-wikipedia-battle-for-rupert-sheldrakes-biography/] or do you want people to see yet another good example of a fine encyclopedia? Wikipedia is a good place to burn the witches but it is not the best place. [[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]] ([[User talk:Tom Butler#top|talk]]) 00:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank you for your response. I bow to your superior wiki knowledge, obviously. It is late for me. I will read your link to craig weiler and comment further tomorrow. --[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the dog]] ([[User talk:Roxy the dog|quack quack]]) 00:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I think I understand where you are coming from now. --[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the dog]] ([[User talk:Roxy the dog|quack quack]]) 13:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
===the lamentable discussion=== |
|||
I have removed your statement that you placed in the section that is for my statement. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARupert_Sheldrake&diff=576906792&oldid=576906762] If you wish to expand your statement, please do so in the section for '''your''' statement or in the general discussion area, but not in the section that is '''my ''' statement. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 21:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Edit warring and 3 revert rule == |
|||
OK, two points |
|||
# Don't [[WP:EDITWAR]]. You're on 3 reverts. |
|||
# I gave you the links to [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:FRINGE]], and asked you to read them. If you dispute an article, you need to frame your objections within that framework. That you've failed to do this therefore is regrettable. Please (re)familiarise yourself with these because ignorance should not be used as an excuse. |
|||
[[User:Barney the barney barney|Barney the barney barney]] ([[User talk:Barney the barney barney|talk]]) 21:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=Autoconfirm= |
|||
{{helpme-helped}} |
|||
I have been an editor for years. How do I become "autoconfirmed"? |
|||
:Hi Tom Butler, an [[WP:AUTOCONFIRMED|autoconfirmed user]] has over ten edits and an account that's over four days old. So, you ''should'' already be autoconfirmed. If you're not, you can try [[WP:Requests for permissions/Confirmed]] to request that permission. [[User:Howicus|Howicus]] [[User talk:Howicus|(Did I mess up?)]] 18:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank you. I ran into a problem with a semi-protected page but it may have been something else I did. I will check. [[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]] ([[User talk:Tom Butler#top|talk]]) 18:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:16, 26 October 2013
Out numbered by masked editors with way too much time on their hands and no social skills
If you need to contact me, the email feature works here or please use the contact Tom Butler tool on my personal website. Tom Butler (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)