Welcome!

Hello, PWhittle, 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 20:42, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon

Gabrielsimon has progressed to removing comments off the talk page that he doesn't like and removing part of the evidence section of the RfC against him. I was hoping you could help watch him and make sure he doesn't do it. Tracing it back and undoing it is getting complicated for me. DreamGuy 18:21, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. This whole mess is a very unpleasant diversion for me, but it's important that the community standards be upheld. Parker Whittle 20:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"witches"

i stil conrtend that witches in the european sense, did not exist in north america until europeans arrived... and as for how they were dealt with, traditionally excecuting people comes from europe, in native america, the worst that can happen to you is banishment. ( for the regions we are speaking of) Gabrielsimon 05:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, Gabriel, and I sympathize with the trust you place in the oral histories you cherish. If you can find works by cultural anthropologists (or other scholars) who have documented the oral histories of your people, you should definitely cite them. I know that you don't mean to come off as belligerent, and I hope you have better luck in the future. The best advice you've been given is to study and understand the policies. Parker Whittle 05:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

okay. check out mystisism for a n editwherei wasnt reverted forever. :) Gabrielsimon 05:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wasn't kidding

I'll drop the sockpuppet thing on the RFC page for now since it's probably not helping. But just so you know, the similiarities are IMO astounding. This new user jumped right into the same fights the other user had been in. This seems rather informative. However, you make a good point, and in the interest of good faith I've apologized to the new user and advised him not to worry at all about other editors or their RFCs. Sorry if I've over-reacted; I'm actually rooting for GS to come out of his RFAr without a ban. However this latest may well hurt (or kill) his chances, IF puppetry is really happening. Friday 20:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I truned myself into a liar about not posting on this topic anymore on the RFC page. However I felt it best to clarify my thinking. Anyway, thanks for trying to keep people from jumping to conclusions. Altho the evidence seems strong to me, you're absolutely correct that we need to assume good faith on the part of the new user. Friday 20:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

droiving away

looks liek Dreamguy and others drove Ketrovin away, if you look at the last thing on his talk page. Gabrielsimon 23:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not quite, I have long refused to allow anyone but myself to influence my actions, and this is no exception.Ketrovin 03:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

knits and picking and monsters, oh, my

im sorry but if youy continue to edit intellegently agsint dreamGuy, i can only see him starting on onyuo as welll. be forewarned! :-) Gabrielsimon 03:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Vader

Thank you for resolving the dispute. Copperchair 05:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

bowing out

was it something I said? FuelWagon 21:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, FuelWagon, I respect your edits, and I support your position. I just don't feel like I'm contributing meaningfully to the discussion, anymore. We have an editor that seems to be in fight-or-flight mode, and I'm hoping that it might calm things down if I'm not involved. --Parker Whittle 21:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. just checking. Sometimes I can overdo it. I'm trying not to overdo it, but sometimes I do. ;/ Anyway, if nothing else, I'll call you on the bat phone if there's trouble in gotham city. ;) FuelWagon 02:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and schizotypy

You wrote the following:

"I've dug up some good primary and secondary (reputable) sources on the link between schizotypy and religious belief, spiritual experience, and what not. I've offered to clean it up in the comments attached to my vote, above. Either way the vote goes, the info will find a home. Parker Whittle 04:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)"

Is this statement no longer operative? Hipocrite 14:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is still operative. I've completed reviewing the research that I found, and I'm well along in the notes compilation stage. I've recently been embroiled in the conflict at Creation science, but I am definitely still working on the Religion and schizotypy article. --Parker Whittle 14:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another week has no passed, and you have mentined no good primary and secondary (reputable) sources on this article. Is yout statement of 8 August, 2005 (which is now 11 days old) no longer operative? Hipocrite 15:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm basically going to rewrite the article completely. I've got research from Pizzigalli, Mohr, Burns, a charming study from Goulding, Muris, a nice speculative essay by Montell published in Evolution and Cognition, among others. I may try to work in some of Persinger's work, or derivatives of it. The journals in which this research was published include: Psychopathology, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, British Journal of Clinical Psychology, and (for good measure :-) European Journal of Parapsychology (actually a fairly interesting study tying Magical Ideation Scale, belief in paranormal abilities, and schizotypy). It's turning into quite a project. Perhaps I'll archive the page under my user page while I work on this.—Parker Whittle 16:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Compliments

De nouveau mon ami, vous offrez tentatives brillants et nobles au site pour élever la barre à poinant et l'impartialité érudite. C'est une chose à savoir, c'est un autre aider des autres pour se savoir. Merci pour tous les efforts pour élever la norme, abaisser l'animosité, et rappeler tout l' « ego » pourquoi ils sont sur le site. 65.26.110.216 01:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

methodological naturalism

Your comments would be appreciated. FuelWagon 21:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put another coat of polish on it [1]. what do you think? FuelWagon 20:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus vs. King Ferdinand

You are of course correct that what Columbus and King Ferdinand's professors at the University of Salamanca disagreed about was not the shape of the Earth but its size. The idea that the professors said it was flat is a literary myth invented by Washington Irving. All educated people in 1486 knew that the Earth was round. The professors thought that its circumference was approximately 24,000 miles, based on Greek astronomy, which was essentially correct. Columbus, as you note, thought that its circumference was 15,000 miles. The fact that he found land, however, is not just fortuitous. He really did know where the land was. He knew where the Vikings had found Vinland. He just thought that Vinland was Siberia.

The shape of northern North America and the shape of northern Asia are similar. Both go from southwest to northeast. He had recomputed the size of the Earth because he knew where the land was.

Columbus was wrong. But he was also right. The professors were scientifically right, and Irving did them a disservice. Robert McClenon 08:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bensaccount RFC

request for comments FuelWagon 03:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to double-check your comment. Either I'm reading it wrong, or there is a word missing somewhere. FuelWagon 17:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn my certification of the RFC against Bensaccount [2] and moved it to "endorse". He has stopped pushing the scientific point of view and I'm willing to wipe the slate clean. if an RFC isn't "certified" by two editors it will be deleted. Whether you change your vote is up to you. I'm just informing of my change. FuelWagon 06:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you recall the Bensaccount RfC

Hey, Parker, looks like you've been gone for a while. Not sure if you'll get this.

I've been RfC'd by SlimVirgin on violating Wikipedia is not a battleground. I've posted some information about how she injected herself into the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bensaccount dispute after we requested that an admin delete the RfC. It is my opinion that she brought her dispute against me on into the Bensaccount RfC and that she made the Bensaccount RfC a battleground. I've posted a description of what I think happened around the Bensaccount RfC here [[3]]. Could you provide a comment of your view about what happened around the Bensaccount RfC. You can post it here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2. Thanks. FuelWagon 18:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]