User talk:Fel64
Welcome![edit]
Hello Fel64, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! SolarMy attention[edit]
You came to my attention as I tend to Welcome those who add to areas such as spirituality, I noticed that you made a change to Sephirot (Kabbalah) which is one of the articles I watch. If you'd like to collaborate on these types of article or join the Spirituality project let me know, it's always good to have new input. - Solar 16:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Sceptics[edit]
Solar, I've seen you several times now mention that the general sceptics group has been rude and prejudiced, as well as logically incorrect, in relation to talk:psychic and talk:psychic detective. I feel that those accusations have been consistently unfounded. Maybe there's something I've missed. Could you fill me in? fel64 23:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dear fel64, I have already commented on this on the Talk:Psychic detective page, in which I drew attention to various rude comments, see this quote from my reply: "It really saddens me that so many who claim to be scientific and fair resort to strawman arguments and veiled insults. In this discussion alone I have been met with all manner of strawmen and sensationalist arguments to statements I have not even made, including reference to: the Holocaust, flat Earth theory, the Easter bunny and now insulting generalisations like "This lands in the "Elvis lives" department — New Age spiritualists always use logic like this"." So I do stand by my statements that certain users have been unfair, childish and rude, as I feel these generalisations show, so to say my highlighting this is “unfounded” is again simply unfair and untrue. The strawmen I refer to are bringing into the debate the flat earth theory, the Bermuda triangle or the Holocaust just to demean my points as it is clear that these comments have nothing to do with the points I made. I also believe stereotyping people into boxes like “new age spiritualists” who use bad logic and believe “Elvis lives” is also unfair and unhelpful to a discussion. These comments may not be direct personal attacks but they hardly benefit intelligent adult debate and are clearly not inline with Wikipedia:Civility policy. I would also like to point out I have not said these individuals were illogical, that statement was made by another user; I don't believe either side of the debate is illogical. As far as James Randi I do believe he is valuable and sincere in his actions and has helped reveal frauds and poor scientific rigor, but that his tabloid like tactics are unhelpful to those sincerely investigating the subject. I do now wish to work on more valuable additions to articles and do not wish to continue this endless debate that can ultimately lead nowhere. Thanks. - Solar 19:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
But, Solar, you see I do. I think that this debate can lead places. Firstly, they are not ad hominem. There is no cause for you to take offence. I agree. Stereotyping people is very unhelpful. But I haven't seen it here. I can't say, either, that I've seen people talk about those things - maybe I have, but I've forgotten it as it seems fairly irrelevant. I'm sure you can point me to those places, but it doesn't matter. Ultimately, I have faith that people who are silly like that won't have the last word in this encyclopedia, and I've seen a large number of very well thought-out comments which have no such basis. I also can't say I've seen those strawmen used, and heck, they're pretty poor strawmen. If neither side of the debate is illogical, and they say conflicting things, then that seems a little impossible. fel64 17:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, I have however said as much as I want to on the subject, which was whether I had made 'unfounded' statements relating to childish and rude users; I think I have made it clear that my statements were true and well founded. All the things mentioned above were quoted from talk pages, so if you look you will see them, you may believe they are not rude or irrelevant and you are entitled to your opinion as am I, this is why I will not be continuing this debate. To answer one last point, IMHO it is possible for two arguments on a subject to be logical or well reasoned and factual but to come to different conclusions depending upon what evidence and expertise you have access to, so I stand by my statement. It is like having two different theories or interpretations of an archaeological site, both theories interpret the evidence ‘logically’ but may come to different conclusions as to the nature of the site, one my be proven wrong or both theories may stand unproven this does not make either illogical, I hope that clarifies my position. I wish you all the best with your future contributions. - Solar 20:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Solar, you want to stop this debate, then stop debating. Fair enough, having two conclusions based on different sets of data is likely. But it's not like the groups here have different experiences - both (some) supporters and sceptics have had experience with psychics, read the same journals etc. While the data is not the same for everybody, there is a great deal of overlap. And while you make a valid comparison to archeology, it is certainly not a hard science (and by the definitions I'm familiar with, not even a science at all). For psychic effects to have proper scientific status, they have to be examined more rigorously than an archeological site (not that they are not thoroughly analysed, but the amount of data you can get from those is often limited). fel64 09:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Your recent message[edit]
Greetings.
I observed your comments on the talk:psychic page. I did not respond directly to your comments at this time, but I did leave a rather lengthy reply on the talk:psychic page to one "KSmrq", who not only saw fit to crticize me but remove an edit I had previously made as well. I believe that reply may address an issue or two that you had raised. Please excuse my failure to properly link references here.
Your new message[edit]
And, um, yes, this is me again. Sorry for not "signing" the last entry.
Anyways, I got your message and replied on the talk:psychic page. Scroll down - it's getting a bit lengthy. My apologies again for not knowing how to give you an easy link for that. Nomorebs 07:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me to be a straight advert for a consulting company - heck, even created by SmartsourcingNow! Googling for some of the text just brings up a whitepaper from a consulting (?) company, so I would have thought that it's purely advertising - a case for WP:AFD, I would have thought. However, you told the user on his talkpage not to user copyrighted text (ie. from that whitepaper?), so I assume that you thought the article itself was worth keeping? Before nominating it, anyway, I wanted to check with you. fel64 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Heck no, the article isn't worth keeping. But since it was a blatent copyvio, I could speedy delete it without messing with a vote for deletion or anything else. If the article is recreated with non-copyvio text, then I will bring it up for a vote for deletion. In my experience, though, most of the time editors who create articles like this will not attempt to recreate with non copyrighted text. That's why I like hunting down copyvios so much. Not only are you catching articles that put Wikipedia at legal risk but you also have a good chance of removing junk from the encyclopedia. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
AfD[edit]
Hi Fel64, this is a message I'm posting to everyone who participated in this AfD. I have nominated the same article for deletion again here – you might be interested. Regards, KissL 09:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry[edit]
Hey, I noticed you reinstated that link to the newest 360Zine article, but I didn't want to revert it again. My figuring is, unless it's an official link or one with loads of info it shouldn't be in the external links; put it in as a reference/source in the article if it's relevant, otherwise just leave it out. A small snapshot of the game like that isn't important enough to be an external link I think. y/n? fel64 19:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry bout that, I'm new to wikipedia, and need to edit an article for a school project, so I don't really know what I'm doing. (Also, sorry if this is the wrong place to put this :S) Jordan Lamplough 11:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)