User:Perfectblue97/pnorm - Knowledge (XXG)

1733:, we should discuss deletions or otherwise allow for discussion. Adding a fact tag to something is one way of calling attention to point of concern. If I were simply to delete everything that I thought needed verifying, many pages might loose valuable content that just needs citing (a 5 minute job for somebody knowledgeable in the subject). Besides, half of the things that I tagged I personally know or believe to be true, but I can't think of a good enough citable source at this time (I can't just quote a college lecturer as etc being my source, it has to be a book or something). 3203:

that somebody dreamed up one night on the web (The belief in aliens, for example, goes back long before the story of Betty and Barny Hill appeared in the papers, and owes its present day state to more than just the X-files). They seem to equate anything that verifies the existence of a belief in the paranormal historically with an attempt to justify the contents of that belief, when in fact the existence of a belief and the scientific facts (or lack of them) of the belief can operate entirely independently.

1051:. The main purpose of NOR is to keep ediors from publishing their own original ideas or theories. Secondarily, the policy prohibits a "synthesis" of material. This would prohibit using the Mathworld information to refute the results or means used by CSICOP, but would not prohibit a short description (including some of the caveats) of Bayesian Analysis using the Mathworld site at a reference. There's no real synthesis going on in the latter situation. 2139:, I can advise that what is stated above is correct. As noted on the top of the page, only arbitrators (and clerks, for ministerial items) may edit the /proposed decision page. However, you are free to edit any other arbitration-related pages including the Evidence page, the Workshop page, or the Proposed decision talk page. Please note that this is just a procedural point I am making here, not a comment on the merits of any aspect of the case. Regards. 678:"My main concern though is that naming the AA-EVP ties the description to an individual group, which means that it can be disputed based on that group rather than on the description itself. I'd feel more comfortable if we used a general attribution to the paranormal community who believe many things, rather than to a group who believe a specific thing, or if we used somebody well known like Clark as a reference." 3039:

conceived as initiating an edit war) in regards to your additions. On this basis, will not revisit my revision the text that you added by either adding or removing them. However, I maintain a defense of my assertion that the inclusion of methodologies are important in order to differentiate between a scientific skeptic conducting research and a pseudo-skeptics voicing an opinion as if it were a conclusion. -

2499: 868:

But, if people wanted to collaborate, we might be able to save a whole lot of time explaining why, for instance, you don't' need to put "supposed" before every mention of a paranormal power. There are a lot of other points, and I see other people going over them just as often as I do. In fact it's so common that I was able to find this just now without really looking (from the Psychic talk page):

1177:

name="macRae1">{{cite journal | last = MacRae | first = Alexander | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Report of an Electronic Voice Phenomenon Experiment inside a Double-Screened Room | journal = Journal of the Society for Psychical Research | volume = | issue = | pages = | publisher = Society for Psychical Research | date = October 2005 | url = | doi = | id = | accessdate = }}</ref>

504:

invariably show it. But i will give an objective presentation in any case. I may be wrong; if the UFOs land, I will know I was wrong.) I meant to differentiate myself from some of my over-enthusiastic fellow-unbelievers, who are willing to distort arguments and even data in order to accomplish the greater good of showing the absolute truth. I don't do that--in fact, they embarrass me.

2756:," leaves me with the understanding that the original wording was fine and didn't need to be changed at all...much less being "literally per the ArbCom". Looks like the editor who added it is willing to edit war over it, so I thought I'd get another opinion on it...and you seem like the perfect choice..;) – 508:

be over enthusiastic, and distort. I can deal with that--I do not refute, I ignore and present the facts. The people I cannot deal with are the ones of my own side who distort. ( I usually try to convince they to keep quiet on grounds of expediency) I think you will know whom I include in this description.

3145:

Hi PB, you ran headlong into the intense atmosphere of psychic surgery...;) I think your reasoning for restructuring the article makes a lot of sense. If you want to pursue it, I'm sure we can work with the other editors on it. I was trying to find a common ground between the two previous extremes.

2719:

article and I thought I'd let you know that I'm proposing a rewrite project for the article. I thought you might be interested in contributing to it. Currently the article seems to have numerous dispute problems including POV issues and I thought I could get it to at least a Good Article. You can see

1337:

Perfectblue, I have no question myself that it is a science. But you should look at the Psychic talk page. We need to get this decided as a matter of policy on Knowledge (XXG). OK, if you think that all we need to say to ArbCom is "it's a member of the AAAS", you may be right. But before I go all

867:

where I'm trying to address some of the errors often committed on Paranormal pages mostly by super-skeptics. Dreadlocke reviewed it, and though we needed something like it. It is very rough still. I don't really know how people go about these things because I am relatively new to Knowledge (XXG).

511:

I think we basically agree, judging by your user page, which I have just seen. (As an aside, I too have heard such noises as we've been discussing. They tended to occur in the early morning, they took the form of semi-intelligible radio stations, and they correlated with recent ethanol consumption. I

212:, which came under assault by the now-departed editor. It's longer than I intended because everyone kept wanting to add things...but feel free to check it out and see if there's anything you think might be of value. I may start editing Demkina again in a few months...but I'm not quite ready yet... 207:

article. It was a hotly contested article for quite a while, mainly because one of the principle players in the CSICOP/CSMMH "investigation" of her was directly editing the article - and he was quite the aggressive type..but now he's left Knowledge (XXG), so it will hopefully be an easier article to

3281:

There are two different sides to psychic seduction, one is the belief that people can use actual psychic powers to seduce people, and the other is basically using body language and confidence in order to make yourself more desirable. I know very little about either side and so could not put together

3119:

edit, where you simply added citations to both publications for every paragraph to the sources mentioned at the end of the article. However, your username does not appear in any previous edits, you do not appear to have written the article, yet you confidently added footnotes to cite every paragraph

630:

I really liked how you expanded the summary I originated for Spiricom. I wonder if you might do the same for MacRae; it needs 3 or 4 more sentences to be useful, as MacRae is mentioned again and again on proponent websites and it appears that his work is thought of as highly significant. Providing a

507:

Thus I can find myself able to work with believers in the paranormal, if they think analogously. They may be willing to present the matter objectively, and lay out the arguments fairly, under their secure assumption that it will demonstrate what they know to be true. On the other hand, they too may

3038:

You may or may not know this, but there was a recent arb com decision on paranormal entries that "strongly discouraged" the repeated insertion and deletion of material. In order to show my support for this decision I have no intention of engaging in any form of edit war (nor behavior that could be

2771:

1) Given the context and the specific labeling in the edit summary, it would indeed appear to be a provocative edit. 2) It goes against my own personal interpretation of the arb 3) "nonphysical forces" is an inaccurate description and needs to be changed regardless of anything else. 4) "Apparently"

2413:

Your recent edit comment raise a question for me. Does a pseudoscience have to be "made to look" scientific? The definition in the Oxford English (1982) says that a pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs mistakenly thought of as scientific. The phrase "made to look" implies that it was deliberate

2383:

You don't have to tell me how notable those labs are :-) I vaguely recall that drafting that links list to begin with. However, since we are trying to pare down the links list, perhaps mention of those labs in the section on "Laboratories, Organizations, and Journals" would suffice? If not,

2361:

so that the article can get featured status one day. Let's work together on this. Considering that we're trying to keep the list small, I thought that links to defunct labs and organizations could be deleted, as well as any link that doesn't point to a major lab or organization. Let me know your

878:

I'll try to answer your first question: a psychic is a psychic. If a person doesn't have the psychic abilities described, then they aren't a psychic. There are people who claim to be psychics, those can be referred to as "claimed" or "claim to be" or "believed to be" - such as Sylvia Browne or John

728:

I think any defintion that begins with "according to..." implies direct endorsement by the persons named. Baruss is the wrong fit. Maybe his pre-experiment defintion of EVP was the same as MacRae, but his post-experiment definition of EVP certainly isn't. OK, how about "according to researchers who

702:

My concern is that an UNattributed definition is perceived as the equivalent of "Knowledge (XXG) defines EVP as X (based on a citation in a footnote that most people won't read)". Not overtly stating that the definition comes from a source because the source is controversial seems very deceptive to

3202:

I'd like to help where I can. Sadly, there are people out there whom I can't help but feel oppose the time lining of things related to the paranormal because it shows that certain beliefs and myths have a history and that they evolved over time. Thus that they aren't a here today gone tomorrow fad

2446:

Hey, thanks for providing your opinion on my RS question. I almost brought it directly to you, I admire the work you do on Knowledge (XXG)! I really like your MIB Wikipe-Tan! I was surprised to see it brought up in the Paranormal ArbCom case...glad someone else saw the connection behind the MIB

660:

EVP is currently defined by the paranormal research group AA-EVP as any "anomalous voices captured on any form of audio recording" that is discovered upon playback, but was not detected at the time that the recording was made, and which does not appear to originate from any local source. EVP are

455:

It's nice to see your version put into place, I see it's been attacked already - it's been a very contentious article. I think some editors are being a bit over-the-top on this, when after all, we're supposed to be bold! And the most contentious editor of all over this article has left Knowledge

437:

It may have escaped your attention that I did not revert your changes. My criticism is not about content, it is about replacing a highly controversial article with a complete rewrite without any prior discussion on its talk page. You are asking others to tag questionable content and to explain the

3084:

The bulk of my edit WAS about the methodology. There is only so much you can type in an edit summary. I stand by my edit and have no intention of being drawn into a protracted argument over it. Please simply accept that I did not feel that I was removing anything of earth shaking, and leave it at

2280:

No, sorry... The article is clearly about a topic in England, therefore British spelling is always used regardless of the personal preferences of the editors involved. That's a policy here. I am American as well, but I follow the style guide here that everyone is expected to follow. Please return

1176:

For instance, I just had to change back an edit which changed "Experiments performed by some scientists have found no evidence of EVP,<ref name="Baruss"/> while others have concluded that the sounds are probably paranormal.<ref>http://www.skyelab.co.uk/review/bb.htm</ref><ref

1172:

from the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research). If there isn't it might be better to go for the most precise wording possible, because that's all that's going to be allowed. That's because I don't know if we'd win an arbcom or mediation which said that a "scientist" is not necessarily a

1057:

Mathworld doesn't mention Demkina or the experiment, but it doesn't have to - it mentions Bayesian Analysis, and so does the Demkina article. I don't think this constitutes original research. But, then again, perhaps we would want to avoid any hint of a potential synthesis. Perhaps it would be

684:

Sure, but if we change the attribution, shouldn't we modify the definition? We shouldn't quote the exact words of a defintion AA-EVP originated and then say it's from "the paranormal community" or somesuch euphemism to hide the fact that it's really the AA-EVP speaking, eh? Got any ideas? (Who is

2209:

My thoughts come in regards to a particular "incident" which I believe to be a trigger. The individual in question took exception to my inclusion of a MIB parody on my user page and deleted a section from it. I noticed the edit a couple of days later and reverted it. 1 hour later the ban was put

512:

have no intentions to say this on the talk page.) I assume the readers are not fools, but perhaps uneducated, and they will recognize the truth, sooner or later. On my user p., I say "I do not try to convert my opponents. I try to convert their audience." My ultimate source for this is JS Mill.

166:

The voice really is well below professional radio quality. That's an objective fact. I'm quite sure the radio producers cringe when they hear the overmodulated screech -- it's a tribute, I suppose, to the information she has to offer that they book her nonetheless. I don't go in for revert wars.

2296:

I'm not aware of Knowledge (XXG) having any policies on British V American English usage at all. Would you be so good as to point them out to me? All that I could find were four non-binding guidelines in the MOS that "suggested" ways in which conflicts over spelling could best be avoided, while

503:

I may not have been clear. If we present what has taken place as reported by observers, and what people of different perspectives have said, I think the truth situation will be clear to a reader. (I privately assume that paranormal phenomena are nonsense, and that a neutral presentation will

31:

Hey! I went ahead and responded to your request, but I did notice that you didn't follow the proceedure for the request listed on the page. Don't worry about it now, I went ahead and fixed it up; just wanted to let you know for the future. Oh, and I didn't mention this in the response, but I do

2310:

I would also ask you to please spare a thought for those who can't use British English. There are many users who are not native speakers and whom are doing their very best with the English that they know, or whom are from non-internationalized areas of America and whom have not been exposed to

712:

MacRae works for me since he is an active researcher who (according to his books) believes that EVP exists. But to include Baruss would make it sound as if he endorses EVP as being "(our definition)" based on one set of experiments he did which did not confirm that EVP exists. So how bout just

369:

complain about lack of authentication for the medical conditions during the test, or even immediately after. So far as I am aware, neither she nor any member of her team ever even asked to see proof. The complaint about proof not being provided after the test came some time after her return to

141:

Even though we expressed very different opinions about the electrokinetic business, I just want to say that I like what I see on your user page. Knowledge (XXG) needs plenty of skeptics to fight the nonsense out there. I can't believe how many TV shows right now promote unconfirmed paranormal

656:

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is a term coined by Colin Smyth to describe speech or speech-like sounds of paranormal origin occurring on previously unused recording media. It was first reported by Raymond Bayless and popularized by Konstantin Raudive. As with all paranormal phenomena, the

343:

Hope you are having a happy holiday season! I took a bit of time off from Knowledge (XXG) for the holidays, so I just now saw your note about your Demkina draft. I'll take a look as soon as I get a chance, I'm sure it's looking great! And hopefully I can provide you with more sources.

703:

me. Like an article on God saying "God is defined as the supreme being who lives in heaven" with the footnote citing the Roman Catholic catechism. So...we really need an overt attribution. ....how about "many paranormal groups and some researchers who study it" ? Got any more ideas?

3132:

In other words, when you added the footnotes, you are personally attesting to the existence of the sources by actually examining them, in print or online, and verifying that the content of the sources reflects the assertions in the article. Is that, in fact, the case? Thanks,

2414:

act when that is not always the case. Some theories start off as scientific and only develop features of pseudoscience at a later date. I largely support your position on excluding those obscure subjects that have never seriously been considered or "made to look" scientific. --

2311:

British English in any meaningful way. For these users, writing in British English is not a practical option. Personally, I consider American English to be more accessible to some because it has a less complicated grammatical structure and simpler, more consistent, spelling. -

446:

You keep claiming that your changes have been discussed somewhere, but you have not provided any links to the pertinent discussions, nor have you offered any explanation for not having (or at least announcing) said discussions on the article talk page where they belong.

547:

I totally agree with you. Very good point about her not giving up and going home. It looks like another editor has put the information on the Center back where it belongs, and the disputing editor has dropped from watching the page (and I presume editing it).

2183:

Given that probation was suggested for a user who committed multiple 3rr and civility violations, far far worse than anything that I've ever been accused of let alone actually done, I can't help but feel that the ban was suggested based on alternate grounds. -

822:

Hi, I noticed you changed the sentence which said that all paranormal phenomena are disputed to saying that "all paranormal phenomena are not disputed, many are known to have been hoaxes, or have not been sufficiently researched for there to be a dispute".

2268:

Just a quick note to say that the spelling changes to spring healed Jack weren't a mistake, these are genuine American English spellings. It's largely a matter of personal knowledge and preference which are used. If you don't like them I won't interfere.

2334:

Just wanted to let you know that the university links you added were already in the article in the same section, so now they're duplicated. I'm not sure if this is something in progress so I didn't want to change it, but I wanted to point it out to you.

3173:

Hello perfectblue97. I saw your interventions at P-surgery and when I visited your page I was glad to see that you crusade for separating the mud from the earth. Just wanted to tell you that I totally suport that. I also wanted to invite you to visit

1214:

says: "MacRae, A., (2003), 'A Means of Producing the Anomalous Speech Products Based on Electro-Dermal Activity', in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, (date TBA) 2003" and Milo H Minderbinder and I don't know whether it was actually

946:, which while laudable in its goals is likely to give rise on the fringes to edits which seek to discredit. I think equal organization is needed to keep negative results from occurring. I think the paranormal project needs to do something together. 1570:

was directed at you. I guess he was just trying to say that since you didn't comment on some of the actual charges that you weren't directly involved with, that you apparently had nothing good to say. It's an "outside view", so you can comment on

2256:

and so forth and so on. Can you please go through and turn those back to how they were? And if you want to put in a comment tag that the spelling is correct and should not be changed it'd help prevent future editors from making the same mistakes.

631:

neutral view of his work might help head off some future edit wars. Although we differ on some points related to the paranormal, I find your editing to be generally even-handed and appropriate to this article, hence I am making this request. ---

88:

What is a "real cryptid"? The majority of critters on that page are clearly not "real". The land squid is thrown around in popular culture from time to time, but I don't know exactly what its origin is. Did I pick the wrong page to include it?

3245:

Thank you for your comment on my talkpage. However, I did leave a description of what I thought was unbalanced - it was deleted from the talk page however due to inactivity (I forgot to reply). I have restored the discussion and replied now.

407:

Hi Perfectblue 97, The Daily Express is running a feature on Harry Price. I have seen the image you have uploaded of him taken with a spirit in the background taken by William Hope. Is there any chance you could email to me a hi-res copy at:

2792:

page than to just revert the disputed edit again - I think it might just lead to edit warring, which is one of the basic things ArbCom was really addressing with its rulings. If we are interpreting the edit correctly as a provocative or

2568:

article. The article has gone through a lot of work and improvements and has recently been promoted to Good Article and is currently being nominated for Featured Article. If you believe it's Featured Article material then please go here

1028:. I think it can be used as a "further reading" or "external link", but I don't believe it can pass muster for an actual reference. Interesting read, if nothing else! You may have seen it in my own draft, but just in case... :) 793:|- {{#if:{{{Pjob|}}}|<tr><td>Paranormal Area:</td><td>{{{Pjob}}}</td></tr>}} |- {{#if:{{{Affiliates|}}}|<tr><td>Affiliates:</td><td>{{{Affiliates}}}</td></tr>}} 1590:

I hope I defended you correctly from the attack by Simões. I just couldn't stand by and see that go unremarked on. You're right, it was an ad-hominem attack from him that could only be meant to try and discredit you. Terrible.

3264:

article should exist, you can fix the article and make an announcement in the AfD. Right now there are no verifiable sources to prove its encyclopedic relevance. If you decide to fix it, make sure any refs you include abide by

1096: 2356:

Hey, I noticed that you've been reverting my changes to the links section. I've been trying to pare down the list a bit, in part to satisfy another editor, but mostly to make sure that the list is well within the guidelines of

1368:

Thanks for all you ideas on parapsychology as a science. I wish I could get to a library, but I'm too far out in the country. I just want to get parapsychology defined as a science on Knowledge (XXG), because I keep getting

3020:. If your blanket revert was indeed well-justified, then you should have no difficulty reverting each individual edit of mine (which I have since restored) and explaining why it is correct to do so, on a case-by-case basis. 1310:

Yes, I know. But we have to muster all facts. The reason for this is that we need in some articles to cite parapsychology as a science, or to cite the consensus in the field. What this is about, is prep for arbitration.

883:

Anyway, these are the kinds of points I want to cover. Perhaps you could take a look at it, and if you think it is worth pursuing, maybe you could tell me how to get others on board. The paranormal project talk page?

1663:

My personal standpoint is that the substance of free energy suppression conspiracy has no grounding in fact, but that the conspiracy itself (the belief that gas companies are suppressing free energy) does exist and is

1659:

Yes, I posted all sorts of tags on free energy suppression. I did so because I think that the page was valid but is in need of work. If I didn't think that the page belonged, period, I'd have put up the deletion tag

729:

conducted their own independent studies on EVP....." (Bear in mind this attribution business is a big sticking point with SA and others, and if we can get something I can sell to them, we are home free...maybe) ---

1694:

can be found. Obviously there are persons X, Y and Z who voiced an opinion of some form of free energy suppression -- but that would only give primary sources. Stitching an article together from primary sources is

2086:

Just a friendly note to say that you made your comments about the Arbitrators' proposal on a page that is supposed to be edited only by arbitrators. You might want to consider moving it to the talk page, instead.

142:

phenomena as reality. Every channel has one! Even the science channels set straight thinking to one side for the sake of ratings! So . . . regardless of circumstances, I'm always pleased to meet a fellow skeptic.

2799:

I realize that those editors who place particular weight on debunking paranormal phenomenon may not agree with the decision. I hope they will respect it nonetheless. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:37, 5 August 2007

657:

existense of EVP is disputed. Some say that the sounds thought to be EVP are caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits, but others say they can be explained by such things as pareidolia or radio signals.

2645:

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.

577:

Are you planning on adding more of your sandbox version to the main article? Let me know in advance, and I'll try to help avoid any minefields...although you seem quite adept at that youself..:)

66:) aired an episode called “Ghostbusters” about the pseudoscience of ghost investigation. Steven Novella, host of the Skeptics’ Guide, was one of two featured scientists/skeptics on the show." from 2772:

could be viewed as POV pushing as it implies that sufficient empirical/circumstantial evidence has been presented to attest to psychic powers being paranormal as far as general consensus goes.

563:

On a side note, I've been reading your comments to other editors about the article, and I think you're very good at handling them. I should probably just keep my big mouth shut... :)

3115:"I'm a little bit confused here. Your edit summary when removing the PROD states, "but everything is clearly sourced to indonesia publications", but there was no direct sourcing until your 1893: 1889: 1136:. I'm not sure if people want to edit under my user page, or edit the main article. But, if it's decided to edit the sandbox, It would be great to have your help. I won't be editing 1024:, but it has a lot of good information on Natasha, the experiment and other related issues. An interesting section is the emails exchanged between the scientists and Natasha's agent: 1206:

Ok cool, there may be a problem: You say "The SPR is over 100 years old, and is affiliated with one of the worlds most renowned universities, and its journal is fully peer reviewed."

661:

typically brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are also claimed. They are normally in a language understood by those present at the time of recording.

438:

reasoning for deletions, but that is not what you did when you replaced the article. Regardless of the merits of the rewrite, this is a perfect method for getting people riled up.

2430:" section of the main page? It would definitely attract readers to the article (which I've found happen with new articles of mine). Another, similar request: May I list it in the 2210:

forward. This comes after my having voluntarily removed myself from all of the controversies raised in the arbitration and having ceased participating in it several weeks prior.

491:

Let's not try too hard. An objective presentation with minimal comment is the way to show it's nonsense. All that's needed is to remove any claim that it's generally accepted.

241:

I haven't really thought of it before you mentioned it, but I guess I have two definitions of "gift"; one is what you describe, something given by someone else, the other is a

1047:

I'm not certain that I quite agree with the disputing editors that including information on Bayesian Analysis from Mathworld constitutes Original Research and thus violates

1405:

That EVP article is a horrid mess, I cannot believe the lengths the so-called "skeptical" side will go to in order to try and completely discredit every single bit of it.

1867:, an article created yesterday. Looking at the Google News hits, "Kaz II" seems to be the correct name, so I suggest merging and redirecting there. And good work. Thanks, 1686:

The urban myth type of article is fine with me -- but, what seems doubtfull from your tagging and a quick seach I did myself, is whether there exists a coherent topic of

1373:

from people who say, it is not a science, there is absolutely nothing to this. I want to be able to cite it as a science, rather than just something some crazies study.

872:

1. If psychics are people who have psychic ability, then the article needs to state that there are no known psychics. That's why I put in "claimed", which was taken out.

675:"some say" - yeah...I don't like that either, for difgferent reasons, but I swallowed it. I think SA is gonna have issues with it too, but we'll cross that bridge later. 1168:

Hi perfectblue, Is there more than one source, the one from the SPR, which is peer-reviewed, and which says the explanation of EVP is probably paranormal? (I mean the

3058:

you made in that revert, rather than just the first paragraph, it will become clearer to you that you changed far more than "inclusion of methodologies" can justify.

2700:

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,

2585: 1885: 1875: 1567: 1000:

supposed to give a clear overview of the article. But, at the same time, many people often want to make half the summary into a refutation of the field. I like the

1998: 1844: 1783:

I'd like to apologize for the parenthetical insinuation of your motives I made on the RFC discussion. It added nothing to my post and was entirely uncalled for.

532:

or is the opening paragraph the best location? Do you see any problem putting it "on the same line" as the University? Seems like a specious argument to me.

59: 395:

as 70/5040 = 1/72 = 0.013888.... That's if you mean EXACTLY four. If you mean AT LEAST four, then it's a somewhat larger number: 23/1260 = 0.018253968....

1544: 1628:

I have endorsed your opinion on the Martin RFC. And I think it's unconscionable for these skeptics trying to harass established editors who oppose them.

3124:). Do you have those publications in front of you, in order to confirm that what the article asserts is actually confirmed by the sources as written? -- 1713: 1058:

sufficient if we just make sure all the information from the mathworld site is in the linked Knowledge (XXG) article. What are your thoughts on this?

414: 2526:, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the 639:

Thanks, good job, while it lasted. Tom Butler's back at the article making changes now. I seriously think this artcile is headed for arbitration. ---

1997:

Another thing that occurred to me is that, if you're just wanting to watchlist all the articles that have your banner, you may be more interested in

1424:

Perfectblue, it would be convienient if you were to create a special email account which you would be willing to share with Knowledge (XXG) users.

1252:

Ok, it really was published. Need to tell people that on the EVP page. What do you think of the current debate about making it more about culture?

2150:

It was an honest mistake. I entered the page from a link that lead to a point half way down its length and so was unaware of the text at the top. -

3146:

Let me know if you want to pursue your restructuring of the article, I think it needs some help and I believe there are a few other editors like

2990:

Please be careful when blanket reverting multiple edits. It is all too easy to undo good contributions, and creates extra work for other editors.

3120:

of the existing text to two extremely obscure publications (which I cannot even confirm the existence of, and am extremely dubious that they are

2247:

Over all I think your edits were pretty good, but you and other editors really have to stop changing the British spellings to American English.

2570: 2396: 2374: 1970: 238:

all the concerns about attributions and any a priori assumptions. It's a tough line to walk between the skeptics and the believers... :)

73:

I've seen the episode myself, but I can't seem to google a really good reference (the second one's okay though). I'll try to find another.

3008:, I reverted or reasons which I saw as valid. It is important to explain th methodology of skeptics else they appear to be pseudoskeptics. - 219:, exactly? The version you edited was the one approved and written by the chief skeptic...it hasn't really been touched since that time... 2745: 1810: 3065: 3027: 2997: 1994:- one is the full list and one is the short list. Take a look and let me know if you want me to continue running the bot on that project. 736:

PS - if we can't reach agreement right away, no sweat. Take time to think about it. In any case, let's keep the friendly dialogue open. ---

2724:. There are a few questions I'd like you to answer first though. If you have any questions about it you can leave me a message. Thanks. 2667: 2612: 2056: 418: 1912: 3186:

I'm glad to see you there too! I'll definitely do the best I can to try and keep things flowing smoothly and to help however I can.

208:

get involved with. I just haven't had the stomach to continue working on it yet. :) I did work with a few other editors on an

2777:

You can revert if you wish, you'll get no complaints from me. I think that it could potentially be reverted on POV ground alone. -

969:

I know you're a member of the rational skepticism project, but you are alos fair to the paranormal. That's one reason I asked you.

3016:

I am indeed assuming good faith on your part. That's why I'm not accusing you of tendentious editing, or demanding an apology for

2052: 1764:

By now I've tried myself finding sources and improving the article, also made a cautionary comment at the AfD. Still undecided. --

1503:

Yes- I'm not even looking at the article now. Let them expend their energies making it all POV-skeptic. Then we'll sandbox it.

1129: 154:

It's a minor thing, but just so you know, the GNU doesn't allow you to specify 'conditions' of usage as you have on this image. --

2788:

Good comment on the Arbitration page; and I totally agree with you. I would rather see a consensus discussion take place on the

2721: 1221: 1025: 470:

Hello Perfectblue97. Please don't forget to use edit summaries to help your fellow editors track changes to articles. Thank you.

1927:

I've presented my evidences in the evidence subpage of the paranormal arbcom case. Take a look if you would like to. Thank you!

1712:

If you're referring to the comment by Jimbo that I think you're referring to, he was actually talking specifically referring to

2174: 2118: 2073: 1517: 1491: 1468: 1441: 1387: 1352: 1325: 1301: 1266: 1238: 1197: 1154: 1115: 983: 960: 926: 898: 844: 617: 234:

Thanks for your honesty! You probably won't like my draft, heck even I don't like parts of it.... :) As you can see, we

2936: 1477:

Exactly- especially the part about getting more people together. I know little about the topic, my interest is purely NPOV.

55:

This is not vandalism, as he did in fact appear on the show as an expert. It was their show on Ghost Hunting. References:

1683:

I've following one of Jimbo's remark, that adding all sort tags to dubious information, can be inferior to just deleting it.

1017: 456:(XXG). Sorry you're running into this trouble, I'll be back online later in the week and will see what I can do to help. 2033: 2012: 1991: 1955: 1813:. Feel free to add yourself as an involved party, otherwise participate, or follow along if you're interested in it. -- 695:

OK, how about: "EVP is currently defined by many in the paranormal community as..." (and then lose the quotation marks?).

411:

I would be very grateful for your urgent help Many thanks in advance Siobhain Furlong Daily express features picture desk

2431: 864: 2660: 2605: 1793: 359: 263:

I look forward to reading your version! I like your view about including the core paranormal belief, while not having "

1338:

that way, I want to have thought of all angles, because the pseudoskeptics will run roughshod over us if we don't win.

2716: 2708: 2022:

Haven't heard from you lately, so wanted to know if the bot's working right for you. Let me know on my talk page? --

652:

User:Martinphi and I have come to a consensus agreement on the first two paragraphs of the summary, as it stands now:

1730: 1284: 1534: 2527: 2392: 2370: 1966: 391:

If all 5040 permutations of the seven answers are equally probable, then the answer is given in the article titled

942:

No of course I wouldn't be offended if you do your own essay. It's just that there is a very well-organized and

382:

A person is presented with 7 questions and 7 answers. What are the odds of them correctly pairing off 4 of them?

993: 1987: 1680:

Thanks for your fast response -- I hope you don't mind that I've move it back kere to keep the topic together.

778:

Section ... just remove it and you will see the white space problem is fixed! so we gotta fix this section! -

235: 1648: 422: 283:

rather than a "scientific" article about her paranormal power. Anyway, I can't wait to read your version!

2498: 2470: 2452: 1845:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Perfectblue97 reported by User:Minderbinder (Result:)

1614: 1596: 1580: 1552: 1410: 1078: 1063: 1033: 582: 568: 553: 537: 461: 349: 328: 310: 288: 250: 224: 67: 3208:

I've had an up hill struggle in the past attempting to show the origins of certain paranormal beliefs. -

3175: 2591:

The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location.

1454:

Suggestion: let them work. Then later, we get together and sandbox it, and revise it to something NPOV.

2701: 2514: 2415: 2385: 2363: 1959: 1940: 1900: 209: 3261: 1609:

because they appear to be separate subject. If I'm wrong, please revert or tell me to do it...Thanks!

179:

You're reportedly doing a grand job infoboxing everything that supposedly moves. Don't get RSI :)

2913:

Feel free to revert and shoot me, if you disagree with my unilateral move, perfect... :( –

3239: 3224: 2688: 2633: 2253:

Skeptical (US) -> Sceptical (UK) Rumor (US) -> Rumour (UK) Neighboring -> Neighbouring (UK)

1610: 1592: 1576: 1548: 1406: 1074: 1059: 1029: 578: 564: 549: 533: 457: 345: 324: 306: 284: 246: 220: 943: 3191: 3159: 3108: 3100: 3059: 3021: 2991: 2973: 2948: 2918: 2862: 2828: 2807: 2761: 2521: 2465:

is hilarious! Every time I read it, I find something else to laugh about! Perfect, perfectblue!

2170: 2114: 2069: 1513: 1487: 1464: 1437: 1383: 1348: 1321: 1297: 1262: 1234: 1193: 1150: 1111: 979: 956: 922: 894: 875:

2. What randomness tests have proven psychic ability? Bubba73 (talk), 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

840: 613: 3283: 3274: 3209: 3086: 3040: 3009: 2929: 2900: 2778: 2674: 2647: 2619: 2592: 2547: 2480: 2312: 2270: 2211: 2185: 2151: 2128: 1746: 1670: 1016:

An excellent analysis of the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation into Natasha Demkina is on this website:

722: 480: 396: 392: 385: 124: 110: 97: 48:

You deleted the following from that article: ", the most prominent of which is Penn and Teller's

17: 3111:

and its Talk page, but I left the following message for you there and am hoping for a response:

2794: 2754:

I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the psychic article vis a vis this matter

2882: 2849: 2435: 2346: 2241: 2228: 2204: 2098: 2029: 2008: 1888:. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, 1848: 1829: 1822: 1814: 810: 797: 779: 180: 2136: 2725: 2653: 2598: 2574: 2140: 1691: 1667:

Think of the page as being about an urban myth. The myth doesn't have to be true to be told.

910: 471: 3005: 2427: 2191: 1048: 280: 276: 3248: 3217: 3179: 3151: 748: 737: 730: 714: 704: 696: 686: 666: 640: 632: 204: 77: 3270: 3121: 2358: 1716:, which you have to be particularly hot on because of the danger of being sued for libel. 1140:

while I see what format people want to use etc. I'm putting this on several talk pages.

1021: 33: 600: 3187: 3155: 2969: 2944: 2914: 2858: 2824: 2803: 2757: 2565: 2557: 2466: 2448: 2162: 2106: 2061: 1821:

I think you can add yourself as an involved party and add a Statement by X section. --

1505: 1479: 1456: 1429: 1375: 1340: 1313: 1289: 1254: 1226: 1185: 1142: 1103: 971: 948: 914: 886: 832: 605: 168: 155: 37: 3266: 2943:

page to remove your comments, and just leave mine. No need to shooteth me... –

2573:

and show your support or add input for improvements that can quickly be made. Thanks.

3147: 2539: 2282: 2261: 1860: 879:

Edward, but a psychic is a person who has those powers; claims don't enter into it.

830:

anymore, are they? It's common on paranormal articles to say always. What say you?

826:

But, if they are known to be hoaxes, or have been scientifically proved, they aren't

275:" every other sentence - especially since those words are to be avoided according to 143: 117: 90: 2928:

Shoot you? OK, but only if you're certain that there isn't a policy against that? -

1986:

Hi, Perfectblue! SatyrBot ran a demo last night through WP:PARANORMAL. It created

2984: 2940: 2877: 2872: 2854: 2844: 2839: 2820: 2789: 2341: 2336: 2223: 2218: 2199: 2194: 2093: 2088: 2024: 2003: 1765: 1698: 1652: 1543:

I know you've worked a lot with Martin, thought you might like to know about this;

192: 3085:

that. Already considerably more has been written on the edit than in the edit. -

2797:

edit, then it's unfortunate that Uninvited Co's hope seems to have been missed: "

1170:

Report of an Electronic Voice Phenomenon Experiment inside a Double-Screened Room

323:", I needed a good laugh! I promise, no more peeking until I get the go-ahead! 242: 1868: 1784: 1001: 409: 1928: 1916: 1629: 1097:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_and_response_in_parapsychology

827: 371: 2838:

Care to discuss the article on its talk page, in full view of other editors?

1073:

Thanks for the response! I'm off the fence and squarely on the NOT-OR side!

114: 49: 245:. I've managed to keep the two separate without even thinking about it! 3134: 3125: 1212: 514: 493: 215:

BTW, I think they left "gift" in because it cuts both ways, a "gift" for

113:

which was a 2003 show. It dates back to at least 1998 in popular culture.

2505: 747:

Thanks, I plugged in the Macrae name. Now I will go seek User:Zoe. ---

448: 439: 63: 62:

2. "On July 11th 2005, Penn & Teller’s Showtime series, Bullshit! (

2752:

to use that specific wording; and the statement from the arbitrator: "

1183:"Experiments performed by scientists have found no evidence of EVP.." 1173:

person published in a peer-reviewed journal or someone with a degree.

1864: 665:

How can we get you "on board" for this agreement? Please advise. ---

1101:

Hi Perfectblue, it would be great to have you opinion on the above.

32:

believe that this article is VERY close to being ready to apply for

1954:

Hi, I'm working on a rewrite of the parapsychology article in my

1892:. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, 1008:

give doubt/skepticsm the main emphasis, but it does includes it.

2744:

as being part of the ArbCom ruling. It looks like it came from

2509: 1220:

See the discussion under the heading "NPOV", and the discussion

1575:

of it, even if you weren't directly involved in the incident.

1053:

I'm on the fence about this one, but I guess I lean towards OR.

909:

Hey, what you just put on my talk page is good! I've added it

477:

Graves, don't forget to tag and bag. RV is not a valid motto.

3154:

who might be excellent partners in the rewrite/restructure.

2819:

Perhaps we should post a copy of the above discussion on the

2160:

You're probably Ok, as Kirill Lokshin just opposed your ban.

1894:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop

1890:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence

1809:

I just wanted to let you know, a case has been requested at

2571:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates/Parapsychology

305:

Your draft is starting to really shape up! Looking good!

3178:

and see if you can help there in your areas of knowledge.

183:

22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (according to some reports)

2564:

Hello, I noticed that you were a frequent editor of the

1958:. You are welcome to join us if you have any input. -- 3055: 3017: 2966: 2741: 2695: 2681: 2640: 2626: 2462: 1607: 530: 529:

Hi, so is there another place to put this information,

60:

board referencing it, with Steven Novella confirming it

2715:

Hey, I noticed you were a frequent contributor to the

2297:

stating that no one form is considered to be the rule.

1828:

I have added you as a party to the requested case. --

1092:

Deletion of Criticism and response in parapsychology

2586:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

1886:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

1884:An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: 1876:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

1811:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration#Paranormal

2935:If there isn't one, I could write one real fast! 2899:I'd rather not get involved. here is fine for me. 1606:I changed the heading structure of these sections 1566:I don't know if you're watching the RfC page, but 191:That seems to have fixed the problem. Good work. ( 2384:your input on the talk page would be helpful. -- 2055:, don't you? I didn't find it for a while. Also 1427:What is the status of EVP within parapsychology? 1211:The current problem is that that journal article 3273:, particularly the "Commercial links" section. 2426:Do you mind if I nominate this article for the " 279:. I was attempting to make the article about a 3215:Let me know where and when I could be of help. 1999:Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Paranormal 2748:, but I don't believe the arbitrator actually 1545:Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_comment/Martinphi 1124:I've been advised to create a sandbox for the 2001:. Would that do what you're looking for? -- 789:part of the coding that is causing the issue: 8: 1863:, which seems to be about the same ship as 2493: 2518:was updated with a fact from the article 1899:On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, 1287:Sandbox on parapsychology as a science. 1126:Criticism and response in parapsychology 2479:A good laugh now and then is a must. - 70:(website of Steven Novella's podcast)" 1913:Knowledge (XXG):Wikiproject Paranormal 243:notable capacity, talent, or endowment 133:— 23:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 109:The land squid did not originate with 106:— 19:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC) 3018:your mistaken reversion of good edits 7: 3282:a competent entry on the subject. - 1533:You might want to take a look here: 64:http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/home.do 2720:my proposal on it's talk page here 1939:...go at the bottom of the page. -- 809:Woho! ok i fixed it! Cheers! (:O) - 203:Glad to see someone working on the 3260:Hey, if you really think that the 360:User:Perfectblue97/Natasha Demkina 24: 3107:Hi, not sure if you are watching 2722:Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon 2497: 2432:Knowledge (XXG):Unusual articles 1859:Hey. I noticed you just created 425:) 12:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC). 319:LOL! Thanks, for your comment " 365:Hi, for your info, Demkina did 195:17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)) 36:. Good job once again on it! -- 2127:Something needs to be said. - 1950:Parapsychology Article Sandbox 1446:21:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1416:17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 1306:06:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 1202:20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1018:Natasha Demkina Summary Update 399:20:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 388:09:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 374:13:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 355:21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 316:06:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 230:01:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 1: 1992:User talk:SatyrBot/Paranormal 1392:02:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 1357:07:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 1330:07:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 1271:20:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 1243:08:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 1159:05:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 1134:Controversy in parapsychology 1120:01:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 1069:09:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 1039:09:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 965:20:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 903:07:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 849:22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC) 800:18:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC) 740:18:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 725:17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 699:16:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 689:15:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 669:01:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 635:20:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC) 622:06:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 599:Hi, just to alert you to the 588:04:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 574:08:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 543:06:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 497:21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 483:17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 474:17:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 467:01:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 442:07:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 294:17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 256:17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 171:22:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC) 158:16:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC) 146:07:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) 80:00:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 44:New England Skeptical Society 40:18:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC) 3252:08:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC) 3212:17:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC) 3182:16:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC) 3165:08:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC) 3137:00:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 3128:06:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)" 3012:08:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 3001:02:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 2932:20:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 1935:Full page-width infoboxes... 1843:A report has been filed at: 1798:) 14:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC) 1084:18:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 994:Knowledge (XXG):Lead_section 988:22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 931:07:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 813:18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC) 782:18:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC) 751:20:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 733:18:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 717:17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 707:16:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 643:20:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC) 559:18:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 518:08:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 451:08:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 281:biography of a living person 3232:20:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC) 3197:17:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC) 3169:Paranormal and par-abnormal 3089:18:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 3069:20:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 3043:17:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 3031:16:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 2979:06:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 2954:20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 2924:23:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2903:16:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 2868:22:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2851:22:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2834:19:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2767:17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2717:Electronic voice phenomenon 2709:Electronic voice phenomenon 2281:them to British spellings. 2137:Arbitration Committee Clerk 1931:20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC) 1919:01:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 1903:01:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 1871:16:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 1851:20:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1825:16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1817:14:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1655:17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 1473:01:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 817: 3301: 2884:23:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2813:19:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2781:19:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2732:00:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 2704:03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 2581:06:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2553:19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 2476:08:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 2458:17:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 2438:13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 2418:11:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 2379:17:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 2348:18:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 2264:20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC) 2214:12:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 2206:10:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 2188:10:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 2179:23:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 2131:20:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 2104:Yeah, I think he's right. 2100:18:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 2078:05:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC) 1832:20:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 1768:20:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 1749:20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 1701:18:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 1673:18:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 1643:I'm a litte bit confused. 1632:03:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 1620:00:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 1586:22:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 1558:17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 1522:19:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC) 1496:19:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 1020:. It is not considered a 3277:11:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC) 2983:Your recent reversion on 2483:18:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 2409:"made to look" scientific 2401:18:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 2315:20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 2285:19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 2273:17:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 2230:20:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 2154:10:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 2143:22:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 2123:20:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 2018:13:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 1975:03:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 1714:pages about living people 1602:18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 996:is followed, the summary 992:The problem is that when 804:Whitespace problem fixed! 768:Problem Found! Whitespace 370:Russia. Regards, — 3286:13:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC) 3269:, and external links by 2039:22:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC) 1988:User:SatyrBot/Paranormal 1943:14:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 1647:put all sort of tags at 2528:Did you know? talk page 1688:free energy suppression 1649:Free energy suppression 3054:Perhaps if you review 2937:WP:DON'TSHOOTDREADSTAR 2217:OK, now I understand. 1026:Natasha Demkina emails 881: 860:Hi again Perfectblue, 525:Demkina and the Center 2668:deleted contribs 2613:deleted contribs 1915:member list. Thanks. 870: 863:I've just started an 417:comment was added by 68:skepticsguide website 3240:Clapham Wood Mystery 3061:Sheffield Steel 3023:Sheffield Steel 2993:Sheffield Steel 2939:...;) I edited the 2352:Parapsychology Links 856:Paranormal practicum 187:Researcher infoboxes 175:alleged CZ infoboxes 2331:Hey Perfectblue97, 1012:Demkina information 34:good article status 3056:all of the changes 2871:Much appreciated. 818:What's paranormal? 769: 393:rencontres numbers 162:Linda Moulton Howe 111:The Future Is Wild 18:User:Perfectblue97 3262:Psychic seduction 3256:Psychic seduction 3196: 3164: 3004:""Please observe 2978: 2953: 2923: 2867: 2833: 2812: 2766: 2551: 2534: 2533: 2475: 2457: 2242:Springheeled Jack 1692:secondary sources 1619: 1601: 1585: 1557: 1415: 1138:in the beginning, 1083: 1068: 1038: 767: 603:on the EVP page. 587: 573: 558: 542: 466: 426: 354: 333: 315: 293: 255: 229: 3292: 3251: 3231: 3229: 3222: 3194: 3190: 3162: 3158: 3122:reliable sources 3062: 3024: 2994: 2976: 2972: 2951: 2947: 2921: 2917: 2880: 2875: 2865: 2861: 2847: 2842: 2831: 2827: 2810: 2806: 2764: 2760: 2729: 2699: 2644: 2578: 2552: 2545: 2542: 2501: 2494: 2473: 2469: 2455: 2451: 2388: 2387:Annalisa Ventola 2366: 2365:Annalisa Ventola 2344: 2339: 2226: 2221: 2202: 2197: 2165: 2109: 2096: 2091: 2082:Arbitration Page 2064: 2038: 2037: 2017: 2016: 1962: 1961:Annalisa Ventola 1941:ScienceApologist 1911:Please sign the 1797: 1617: 1613: 1599: 1595: 1583: 1579: 1555: 1551: 1508: 1482: 1459: 1432: 1413: 1409: 1378: 1343: 1316: 1292: 1257: 1229: 1188: 1145: 1106: 1081: 1077: 1066: 1062: 1036: 1032: 974: 951: 917: 889: 835: 608: 585: 581: 571: 567: 556: 552: 540: 536: 464: 460: 412: 352: 348: 331: 327: 313: 309: 291: 287: 253: 249: 236:tried to address 227: 223: 131: 127: 121: 104: 100: 94: 3300: 3299: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3258: 3247: 3243: 3225: 3218: 3216: 3192: 3171: 3160: 3143: 3105: 3068: 3060: 3030: 3022: 3000: 2992: 2988: 2974: 2963: 2949: 2919: 2878: 2873: 2863: 2845: 2840: 2829: 2808: 2762: 2740:I don't recall 2738: 2727: 2713: 2711:rewrite project 2689:block user 2682:filter log 2651: 2634:block user 2627:filter log 2596: 2589: 2576: 2562: 2540: 2537: 2492: 2471: 2453: 2444: 2424: 2411: 2405: 2400: 2386: 2378: 2364: 2354: 2342: 2337: 2329: 2323: 2245: 2224: 2219: 2200: 2195: 2178: 2163: 2122: 2107: 2094: 2089: 2084: 2077: 2062: 2051:You know about 2049: 2043: 2027: 2023: 2006: 2002: 1984: 1978: 1974: 1960: 1952: 1946: 1937: 1925: 1909: 1879: 1857: 1841: 1807: 1801: 1796: 1790: 1781: 1641: 1635: 1626: 1615: 1597: 1581: 1564: 1553: 1541: 1531: 1521: 1506: 1495: 1480: 1472: 1457: 1452: 1445: 1430: 1422: 1411: 1403: 1391: 1376: 1356: 1341: 1329: 1314: 1305: 1290: 1282: 1270: 1255: 1242: 1227: 1201: 1186: 1166: 1158: 1143: 1128:article. It's 1119: 1104: 1094: 1088: 1079: 1064: 1045: 1034: 1014: 987: 972: 964: 949: 940: 930: 915: 902: 887: 858: 852: 848: 833: 820: 806: 794: 771: 763: 650: 628: 621: 606: 597: 591: 583: 569: 554: 538: 527: 489: 462: 435: 433:Natasha Demkina 429: 413:—The preceding 405: 380: 363: 350: 329: 321:hey, no peeking 311: 289: 251: 225: 210:expansion draft 205:Natasha Demkina 201: 199:Natasha Demkina 189: 177: 164: 152: 139: 129: 125: 119: 102: 98: 92: 86: 46: 29: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3298: 3296: 3288: 3287: 3257: 3254: 3242: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3205: 3204: 3199: 3198: 3170: 3167: 3142: 3139: 3130: 3129: 3104: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3064: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3033: 3032: 3026: 2996: 2987: 2981: 2962: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2823:page? – 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2783: 2782: 2774: 2773: 2737: 2734: 2712: 2706: 2696:block log 2641:block log 2588: 2583: 2566:Parapsychology 2561: 2558:Parapsychology 2555: 2532: 2531: 2502: 2491: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2443: 2440: 2423: 2420: 2410: 2407: 2403: 2402: 2390: 2368: 2353: 2350: 2328: 2325: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2275: 2274: 2244: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2168: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2145: 2144: 2125: 2124: 2112: 2083: 2080: 2067: 2048: 2045: 2041: 2040: 1983: 1980: 1964: 1951: 1948: 1936: 1933: 1924: 1921: 1908: 1905: 1878: 1873: 1856: 1853: 1840: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1806: 1803: 1792: 1780: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1696: 1684: 1681: 1675: 1674: 1668: 1665: 1661: 1640: 1637: 1625: 1622: 1604: 1603: 1563: 1560: 1540: 1537: 1530: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1511: 1498: 1497: 1485: 1462: 1451: 1448: 1435: 1421: 1418: 1402: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1381: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1346: 1332: 1331: 1319: 1295: 1281: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1260: 1245: 1244: 1232: 1217: 1216: 1208: 1207: 1191: 1165: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1148: 1109: 1093: 1090: 1086: 1085: 1044: 1041: 1013: 1010: 990: 989: 977: 954: 939: 938:Your own essay 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 920: 892: 857: 854: 838: 819: 816: 815: 814: 805: 802: 792: 791: 790: 783: 770: 765: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 734: 720: 719: 718: 710: 709: 708: 682: 681: 680: 679: 676: 663: 662: 658: 649: 646: 645: 644: 627: 624: 611: 596: 595:Summary of EVP 593: 561: 560: 526: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 509: 505: 488: 485: 453: 452: 434: 431: 404: 401: 379: 376: 362: 357: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 298: 297: 296: 295: 258: 257: 239: 200: 197: 188: 185: 176: 173: 163: 160: 151: 150:Image:Evp1.png 148: 138: 137:Fellow skeptic 135: 85: 82: 45: 42: 28: 27:Boy Scout Lane 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3297: 3285: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3276: 3275:Joie de Vivre 3272: 3268: 3263: 3255: 3253: 3250: 3241: 3238: 3230: 3228: 3223: 3221: 3214: 3213: 3211: 3207: 3206: 3201: 3200: 3195: 3189: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3181: 3177: 3168: 3166: 3163: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3140: 3138: 3136: 3127: 3123: 3118: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3110: 3109:Alor Incident 3102: 3101:Alor Incident 3099: 3088: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3067: 3063: 3057: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3042: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3029: 3025: 3019: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3011: 3007: 3002: 2999: 2995: 2986: 2982: 2980: 2977: 2971: 2967: 2960: 2952: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2933: 2931: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2922: 2916: 2902: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2883: 2881: 2876: 2870: 2869: 2866: 2860: 2856: 2853: 2852: 2850: 2848: 2843: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2832: 2826: 2822: 2811: 2805: 2801: 2796: 2791: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2775: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2765: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2735: 2733: 2731: 2730: 2723: 2718: 2710: 2707: 2705: 2703: 2697: 2694: 2690: 2687: 2683: 2680: 2676: 2673: 2669: 2666: 2662: 2659: 2655: 2649: 2642: 2639: 2635: 2632: 2628: 2625: 2621: 2618: 2614: 2611: 2607: 2604: 2600: 2594: 2587: 2584: 2582: 2580: 2579: 2572: 2567: 2559: 2556: 2554: 2549: 2544: 2543: 2529: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522:Killer badger 2517: 2516: 2515:Did you know? 2511: 2507: 2503: 2500: 2496: 2495: 2490:Killer badger 2489: 2482: 2478: 2477: 2474: 2468: 2464: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2456: 2450: 2441: 2439: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2422:Killer Badger 2421: 2419: 2417: 2408: 2406: 2398: 2394: 2389: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2367: 2362:thoughts. -- 2360: 2351: 2349: 2347: 2345: 2340: 2332: 2326: 2324: 2314: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2284: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2272: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2263: 2258: 2254: 2251: 2250:For example: 2248: 2243: 2240: 2229: 2227: 2222: 2216: 2215: 2213: 2208: 2207: 2205: 2203: 2198: 2193: 2190: 2189: 2187: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2167: 2166: 2153: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2130: 2120: 2116: 2111: 2110: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2099: 2097: 2092: 2081: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2066: 2065: 2058: 2054: 2046: 2044: 2035: 2031: 2026: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2014: 2010: 2005: 2000: 1995: 1993: 1989: 1981: 1979: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1963: 1957: 1949: 1947: 1944: 1942: 1934: 1932: 1930: 1922: 1920: 1918: 1917:J. D. Redding 1914: 1906: 1904: 1902: 1897: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1882: 1877: 1874: 1872: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1861:Kaz 11 (ship) 1855:Kaz 11 (ship) 1854: 1852: 1850: 1846: 1838: 1831: 1827: 1826: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1816: 1812: 1804: 1802: 1799: 1795: 1788: 1787: 1778: 1767: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1748: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1732: 1729:According to 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1715: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1700: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1682: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1672: 1669: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1638: 1636: 1633: 1631: 1623: 1621: 1618: 1612: 1608: 1600: 1594: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1584: 1578: 1574: 1569: 1561: 1559: 1556: 1550: 1546: 1538: 1536: 1535: 1528: 1519: 1515: 1510: 1509: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1493: 1489: 1484: 1483: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1461: 1460: 1449: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1434: 1433: 1425: 1419: 1417: 1414: 1408: 1400: 1389: 1385: 1380: 1379: 1372: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1354: 1350: 1345: 1344: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1327: 1323: 1318: 1317: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1294: 1293: 1286: 1279: 1268: 1264: 1259: 1258: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1240: 1236: 1231: 1230: 1223: 1219: 1218: 1213: 1210: 1209: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1190: 1189: 1181: 1178: 1174: 1171: 1163: 1156: 1152: 1147: 1146: 1139: 1135: 1132:, renamed to 1131: 1127: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1108: 1107: 1099: 1098: 1091: 1089: 1082: 1076: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1067: 1061: 1055: 1054: 1050: 1042: 1040: 1037: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1011: 1009: 1007: 1004:summary. It 1003: 999: 995: 985: 981: 976: 975: 968: 967: 966: 962: 958: 953: 952: 945: 937: 928: 924: 919: 918: 912: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 900: 896: 891: 890: 880: 876: 873: 869: 866: 861: 855: 853: 850: 846: 842: 837: 836: 829: 824: 812: 808: 807: 803: 801: 799: 788: 784: 781: 777: 773: 772: 766: 764: 750: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 739: 735: 732: 727: 726: 724: 721: 716: 711: 706: 701: 700: 698: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 688: 677: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 668: 659: 655: 654: 653: 647: 642: 638: 637: 636: 634: 625: 623: 619: 615: 610: 609: 602: 594: 592: 589: 586: 580: 575: 572: 566: 557: 551: 546: 545: 544: 541: 535: 531: 524: 517: 516: 510: 506: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 496: 495: 486: 484: 482: 478: 475: 473: 468: 465: 459: 450: 445: 444: 443: 441: 432: 430: 427: 424: 420: 419:62.189.104.50 416: 410: 402: 400: 398: 397:Michael Hardy 394: 389: 387: 383: 377: 375: 373: 368: 361: 358: 356: 353: 347: 332: 326: 322: 318: 317: 314: 308: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 299: 292: 286: 282: 278: 274: 270: 266: 262: 261: 260: 259: 254: 248: 244: 240: 237: 233: 232: 231: 228: 222: 218: 213: 211: 206: 198: 196: 194: 186: 184: 182: 174: 172: 170: 161: 159: 157: 149: 147: 145: 136: 134: 132: 123: 116:— 115: 112: 107: 105: 96: 89:— 83: 81: 79: 74: 71: 69: 65: 61: 56: 53: 51: 43: 41: 39: 35: 26: 19: 3259: 3244: 3226: 3219: 3176:WP:TIMETRACE 3172: 3144: 3131: 3116: 3106: 3003: 2989: 2985:Crop circles 2964: 2941:Talk:Psychic 2912: 2821:Talk:Psychic 2818: 2802:". – 2798: 2790:Talk:Psychic 2753: 2749: 2739: 2726: 2714: 2692: 2685: 2678: 2671: 2664: 2657: 2637: 2630: 2623: 2616: 2609: 2602: 2590: 2575: 2563: 2538: 2535: 2520: 2519: 2513: 2445: 2436:Totnesmartin 2428:Did You Know 2425: 2412: 2404: 2355: 2333: 2330: 2322: 2259: 2255: 2252: 2249: 2246: 2161: 2159: 2126: 2105: 2085: 2060: 2050: 2042: 1996: 1985: 1977: 1953: 1945: 1938: 1926: 1910: 1898: 1883: 1880: 1858: 1849:Minderbinder 1842: 1830:Minderbinder 1823:Minderbinder 1815:Minderbinder 1808: 1800: 1785: 1782: 1695:discouraged. 1690:, for which 1687: 1644: 1642: 1634: 1627: 1605: 1572: 1565: 1542: 1532: 1504: 1478: 1455: 1453: 1428: 1426: 1423: 1404: 1374: 1370: 1339: 1312: 1288: 1283: 1253: 1225: 1184: 1182: 1179: 1175: 1169: 1167: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1125: 1102: 1100: 1095: 1087: 1056: 1052: 1046: 1015: 1005: 997: 991: 970: 947: 944:united front 941: 913: 885: 882: 877: 874: 871: 862: 859: 851: 831: 825: 821: 811:nima baghaei 798:nima baghaei 795: 786: 780:nima baghaei 775: 762: 685:Clark?) --- 683: 664: 651: 629: 604: 598: 590: 576: 562: 528: 513: 492: 490: 479: 476: 469: 454: 436: 428: 406: 390: 384: 381: 366: 364: 342: 320: 272: 268: 264: 216: 214: 202: 190: 181:Totnesmartin 178: 165: 153: 140: 108: 87: 75: 72: 57: 54: 47: 30: 3284:perfectblue 3210:perfectblue 3087:perfectblue 3041:perfectblue 3010:perfectblue 2930:perfectblue 2901:perfectblue 2779:perfectblue 2728:Wikidudeman 2702:Thatcher131 2577:Wikidudeman 2481:perfectblue 2313:perfectblue 2271:perfectblue 2212:perfectblue 2186:perfectblue 2152:perfectblue 2141:Newyorkbrad 2129:perfectblue 1923:Arbitration 1901:Thatcher131 1747:perfectblue 1671:perfectblue 1002:creationism 723:perfectblue 481:perfectblue 472:Nick Graves 403:Harry Price 386:perfectblue 378:probability 271:" or even " 3249:Lilac Soul 3180:Librarian2 3152:Librarian2 2965:Congrats! 2416:Potentiate 1839:3RR on EVP 1611:Dreadlocke 1593:Dreadlocke 1577:Dreadlocke 1549:Dreadlocke 1407:Dreadlocke 1215:published. 1075:Dreadlocke 1060:Dreadlocke 1030:Dreadlocke 828:paranormal 774:It is the 749:LuckyLouie 738:LuckyLouie 731:LuckyLouie 715:LuckyLouie 705:LuckyLouie 697:LuckyLouie 687:LuckyLouie 667:LuckyLouie 641:LuckyLouie 633:LuckyLouie 601:discussion 579:Dreadlocke 565:Dreadlocke 550:Dreadlocke 534:Dreadlocke 458:Dreadlocke 346:Dreadlocke 325:Dreadlocke 307:Dreadlocke 285:Dreadlocke 247:Dreadlocke 221:Dreadlocke 84:land squid 78:Havermayer 3220:ℒibrarian 3188:Dreadstar 3156:Dreadstar 2970:Dreadstar 2945:Dreadstar 2915:Dreadstar 2859:Dreadstar 2825:Dreadstar 2804:Dreadstar 2758:Dreadstar 2467:Dreadstar 2449:Dreadstar 2447:phrase! 2327:Parapsych 1285:come play 269:so-called 169:El Ingles 156:InShaneee 50:Bullshit! 38:InShaneee 3148:Jennylen 3141:Psurgery 3066:stalkers 3028:stalkers 2998:stalkers 2968:– 2857:– 2795:WP:POINT 2661:contribs 2606:contribs 2541:howcheng 2397:Contribs 2375:Contribs 2283:DreamGuy 2262:DreamGuy 2260:Thanks. 2175:Contribs 2119:Contribs 2074:Contribs 2034:contribs 2013:contribs 1982:SatyrBot 1971:Contribs 1794:contribs 1664:notable. 1639:Confused 1562:Comments 1529:Opinion? 1518:Contribs 1492:Contribs 1469:Contribs 1442:Contribs 1401:EVP mess 1388:Contribs 1353:Contribs 1326:Contribs 1302:Contribs 1267:Contribs 1239:Contribs 1198:Contribs 1155:Contribs 1116:Contribs 984:Contribs 961:Contribs 927:Contribs 899:Contribs 845:Contribs 785:this is 713:MacRae? 618:Contribs 415:unsigned 144:Doczilla 3103:sources 2506:19 July 2442:Thanks! 2025:SatyrTN 2004:SatyrTN 1956:Sandbox 1907:Member? 1881:Hello, 1779:Apology 1766:Pjacobi 1699:Pjacobi 1660:myself. 1653:Pjacobi 1006:doesn't 648:Summary 273:claimed 265:alleged 193:Emperor 3006:WP:AFG 2736:Arbcom 2691: 2684: 2677: 2670: 2663: 2656: 2650: 2648:Kazuba 2636: 2629: 2622: 2615: 2608: 2601: 2595: 2593:Dradin 2434:page? 2192:WP:AGF 2164:Martin 2135:As an 2108:Martin 2063:Martin 1869:Prolog 1865:Kaz II 1805:Arbcom 1786:Simões 1731:policy 1507:Martin 1481:Martin 1458:Martin 1431:Martin 1377:Martin 1342:Martin 1315:Martin 1291:Martin 1256:Martin 1228:Martin 1187:Martin 1144:Martin 1105:Martin 1049:WP:NOR 973:Martin 950:Martin 916:Martin 888:Martin 834:Martin 776:Resume 626:MacRae 607:Martin 277:WP:WTA 267:" or " 3271:WP:EL 2855:Done. 2800:(UTC) 2359:WP:EL 1929:Wooyi 1630:Wooyi 1420:email 1371:stuff 1022:WP:RS 865:essay 372:BillC 16:< 3267:WP:V 3150:and 3117:next 2874:Ante 2841:Ante 2750:said 2746:this 2742:this 2675:logs 2654:talk 2620:logs 2599:talk 2548:chat 2510:2007 2463:This 2393:Talk 2371:Talk 2338:Ante 2220:Ante 2196:Ante 2171:Talk 2115:Talk 2090:Ante 2070:Talk 2057:here 2053:this 2030:talk 2009:talk 1990:and 1967:Talk 1651:. -- 1568:this 1514:Talk 1488:Talk 1465:Talk 1438:Talk 1384:Talk 1349:Talk 1322:Talk 1298:Talk 1280:Play 1263:Talk 1235:Talk 1222:here 1194:Talk 1151:Talk 1130:here 1112:Talk 980:Talk 957:Talk 923:Talk 911:here 895:Talk 841:Talk 614:Talk 423:talk 217:what 122:acan 95:acan 3135:MCB 3126:MCB 2879:lan 2846:lan 2504:On 2343:lan 2225:lan 2201:lan 2095:lan 1645:You 1624:RFC 1573:any 1547:. 1539:RfC 1450:EVP 1180:to 1164:EVP 1043:NOR 787:THE 515:DGG 494:DGG 487:EVP 367:not 118:coe 91:coe 58:1. 3133:-- 2961:BF 2560:FA 2536:-- 2530:. 2512:, 2508:, 2395:| 2373:| 2173:Ψ 2117:Ψ 2072:Ψ 2059:. 2032:| 2011:| 1969:| 1896:. 1847:-- 1516:Ψ 1490:Ψ 1467:Ψ 1440:Ψ 1386:Ψ 1351:Ψ 1324:Ψ 1300:Ψ 1265:Ψ 1237:Ψ 1224:. 1196:Ψ 1153:Ψ 1114:Ψ 998:is 982:Ψ 959:Ψ 925:Ψ 897:Ψ 843:Ψ 616:Ψ 449:Rl 440:Rl 130:lk 103:lk 76:-- 52:" 3227:2 3193:† 3161:† 2975:† 2950:† 2920:† 2864:† 2830:† 2809:† 2763:† 2698:) 2693:· 2686:· 2679:· 2672:· 2665:· 2658:· 2652:( 2643:) 2638:· 2631:· 2624:· 2617:· 2610:· 2603:· 2597:( 2550:} 2546:{ 2472:† 2454:† 2399:) 2391:( 2377:) 2369:( 2177:) 2169:( 2121:) 2113:( 2076:) 2068:( 2047:? 2036:) 2028:( 2015:) 2007:( 1973:) 1965:( 1791:/ 1789:( 1616:☥ 1598:☥ 1582:☥ 1554:☥ 1520:) 1512:( 1494:) 1486:( 1471:) 1463:( 1444:) 1436:( 1412:☥ 1390:) 1382:( 1355:) 1347:( 1328:) 1320:( 1304:) 1296:( 1269:) 1261:( 1241:) 1233:( 1200:) 1192:( 1157:) 1149:( 1118:) 1110:( 1080:☥ 1065:☥ 1035:☥ 986:) 978:( 963:) 955:( 929:) 921:( 901:) 893:( 847:) 839:( 796:- 620:) 612:( 584:☥ 570:☥ 555:☥ 539:☥ 463:☥ 421:( 351:☥ 330:☥ 312:☥ 290:☥ 252:☥ 226:☥ 128:a 126:t 120:l 101:a 99:t 93:l

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index