User talk:LuckyLouie/Archive 2

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For constructive and improving edits to Ian Stevenson. Keep it up! Verbal chat 08:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

times 2 of the above for Gary Schwartz and the Piper article. Well done! And Merry Christmas! Verbal chat 16:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusation

You've been accused of sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papa November. I don't think you need to worry about it Papa November (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:HalliFeb1942QST.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:HalliFeb1942QST.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Wdet.png

File:Wdet.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:WDET-FM transmitter.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:WDET-FM transmitter.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility on Pecha Kucha

I strongly disagree that the section on Accessibility that you have removed twice on the Pecha Kucha page are opinions and how-to. The section describes the inherent accessibility issues that the presentation form provides and describes an alternative approach that help alleviate such issues. If you remove the section on the grounds that it is "How-to" information, you might as well remove the entire, or large sections, of the article as well as other articles, such as the Accessibility page itself. Accessibility is a real concern that affects large groups of people, not jsut a minority "opinion". Ndufva (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that you want the information to be verifiable. This is hardly what you used as an argument in the first instance. I shall look for a third party verifiable source of this information. By the way, you should know that blindly deleting content like this (twice!) is not really good form. See for example Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes under deletions... Ndufva (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

How could the material from this diff [1] be worded to as to meet your approval? It reads: In some cases, however, children claim to have previously been members of lower social classes. In one instance, a girl named Swaran Lata, who was born into an upper-class family in India, reported memories of being someone who cleaned toilets. She habitually cleaned up the excrement of other children, and refused to go to school when she was young, saying that "We are sweepers. Nobody studies in our family, and I never sent my children to school." Thanks for the help, Mitsube (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Answered here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are aware of the three revert rule. Mitsube (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I assume you are aware of WP:GAME. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why you bring that up? Mitsube (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want you posting more policy reminders on my Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Scr300.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Scr300.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Dave1185 ^talk 06:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• its obviously out of a gov. manual. but I forget which one TM 11-242 maybe. Brian in denver (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jim Tucker

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jim Tucker, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Tucker. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Artw (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Inadvertent changes

Hi Lucky. I seem to have inadvertently changed something in the Amateur Radio article beyond my intent. Another editor had changed all occurrences of "call sign" with "callsign". Since the most common way to write the term is using two words (see, for example the FCC, ARRL, and ITU web sites), I simply undid the change. But this apparently caused some references to change, as indicated by a subsequent edit to correct the problem. I would like to understand how it happened. Did I cause it? I simply undid a previous edit where two words were replaced by one word. How could that change some references? Thanks. RadiomanPA (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

List of major phenomena captured on Ghost Adventures

As the prod was removed I took the article to AfD. Verbal chat 15:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about The Full Armor of God Broadcast

- In regard to the notable artist liners used to try and establish some notability of the show, how does the following wikipedia policy apply? If at all..

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Couldn't this along with the program schedules be eneough to verify notablitiy in it's musical realm of Christian Metal? Please note, it is not the intension of this article to present The Full Armor of God Broadcast as something it isn't.. But exactly what it is? A significant Christian Metal broadcaster of it's counter culture ONLY.

By the way, if I came off disrespectful, I appologize. I really felt under the gun when everyone started coming at me from all sides on this. Forgive me.. Armorbearer777 (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dean Radin

[2] [3] This is the probable reason why Asdfg12345 took a sudden interest in parapsychology articles. Simonm223 (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Was it Radin, not Nelson? Wow is my face red.  :) Anyway, yeah, I entirely agree about the need for proper independent references for the notability of those "theories". I'm just saying that I don't expect them to be forthcoming anytime soon as I suspect my edits are being scrutinized for reasons related to an interpersonal conflict rather than for content reasons. It wouldn't be the first time. Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Cold Spot

I agree deletion is inappropriate in this case. It is notable that ghost hunter types believe these purported temperature fluctuation are in some way related to ghosts. Perhaps stubbing the article would be the best approach. Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean unencyclopedic? Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree entirely. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Skinwalker Ranch

Please tell me what articles, references or other sources you need for the skinwalker ranch page. If none of the current editors are willing to find sources I will take the responsibility of doing so myself. However I am NOT good at editing wiki articles and will be happy to provide all the of materials to you for review. My email address is hiii_98@yahoo.com . I am very passionate about this topic and do not want to see it fade into obsuriety hiii98 (talk) 21:51, 22 Feburary 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.255.118 (talk)

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&q=%27robert+bigelow%22+ranch&spell=1 Results 1 - 10 of about 1,400 for 'robert bigelow" ranch. (0.23 seconds

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&q=%22gilliland+ranch%22&spell=1 Results 1 - 6 of 6 for "gilliland ranch". (0.12 seconds)

I think 1,400 results from google news and a plethora of reliable sources amongst that mix would dictate a higher volume of attention to this specific wikipedia article. Please review the first link for countless new sources on the ranch. The wikipedia article itself for the ranch has a high volume of traffic per day, I assume this is due to the vast amount of media coverage of the ranch, yet this is paradoxically offset by the recent amputation of information on it's wikipedia article. I also included google news results for "gilliland ranch" a similiar "haunted ranch" (to use one editors terms), to demonstrate the dramatic contrast in media attention and public interest in Bigelow's Ranch. Hiii98 (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

HAARP

I noticed you reverted the citation about Venezuela & Russia on the article. I don't want to hit 3RR, but there seems to be a problem with the ref. The ADN link in that reference doesn't contain the large section in the ref about "El Diario Exterior is reporting...". Is that from the BoingBoing link on the ADN site? If so, we should be using that direct link (I can't access BoingBoing at work to check it). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That particular section has been hard-hit by pro and anti Chavez factions lately, so I reverted to the original version to clean out the various editorializing additions. But I hear you, I'll check that source, and maybe see if we can't get an even better one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll see what I can find on my day off work, as well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a tough one. A news search turns up lots of coverage, but not from concurrent major news sources (Fox being the exception). - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Paranormal

Just a comment: It would be cool if you identify yourself as a member of WikiProject Paranormal, since I see your name on the history pages of various paranormal articles. Thanks for the neutralizing revisions. The project really needs helpful people like you.--Ghostianity 08:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my name is on many of those history pages, probably because fringe/paranormal articles seem to attract the most unverified material and need the most work. Thanks for your offer, I mostly pitch in on WP:FTN and WP:RSN but I'll think about it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Aaron Goodwin (cameraman)

Hi. Sorry, I did not create Aaron Goodwin (cameraman), but I did move it from Aaron Goodwin (paranormal investigator). It's actually User:Mims72. Contact them here. --twinsday (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Reincarnation research

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Reincarnation research. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reincarnation research. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Reincarnation

Hello LuckyLouie. I think you may have not seen a couple of sections on the talk page which are relevant to your recent edits, which I thought were for the most part fine. There is some agreement on the talk page that "Largely a religious topic is different than solely a religious topic" (as Nealparr put it) and I based my version of the sentence in the intro on what he suggested. I think it doesn't endorse or even hint at either positive or negative conclusions drawn from the investigations. Is this acceptable to you? Regards, Mitsube (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Shortwave listeners

Sorry I didn't see your post until tonight. Yes, the students are trying to add to the article. They did work on it off the page, and then added it. Might be good to try to help them. They are doing their best, I'm sure. I'm encouraging them to be more specific, and cite their sources. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage them but I need something to work with. They are contributing book reports on a single book and promoting a classroom technique that's 20 years out of date. Please advise. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the book they read is a new book, and the author came to the classroom to discuss it with them, which got them fired up about it, and inspired to write something. I'm not sure about the classroom techniques--I hadn't heard about that yet. I encouraged them to focus on radio listeners in World War II. the class is called Shaping the MOdern world, and we're examining a variety of events, developments, etc., that helped to shape the world they know. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Los Angeles

Nice work on Battle of Los Angeles and related articles. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for a sensible contribution. Skeptic2 (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little worried about quoting the entire "Office of Air Force History" doc, but since it's a U.S. government source, it may not be an issue. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Synthetic telepathy

Thanks for the sanity check, that was a bit pointless of me. I'll take it back, and stop feeding him. --McGeddon (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is the same character who disrupted similar articles a while back. Starts off crusading to get material about "government mind control methods" into articles, rapidly becomes intractable, accuses everybody involved of sock puppetry and conspiring against him, finally gets banned. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of World War II Radio Heroes: Letters of Compassion

Hello! Your submission of World War II Radio Heroes: Letters of Compassion at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Lionelt (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Regarding your last comment on the OOPArt Talk Page, I added thise paragraph to the article: In some rare cases, the validity of some of these claims is validated by mainstream science, i.e. it is proven that some artifact was created with a technology not previously thought to have existed in the ancient culture that built it (see "fully validated" example).

What do you think? --Againme (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Note for you

See William James discussion page.Kazuba (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at User talk:58.96.94.12‎

If you wish to know more about the history of the Omega Point (Tipler) article, see the SPI I've filed. I've been studying the actions of Jamiemichelle ever since I stumbled onto the article Existence of God, which was also similarly affected. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

@58.96.94.12:

Another note for you

See William James discussion page. Nice historical problem. Kazuba (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not the William James page, by the way. The article subject is Leonora Piper. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

New message at Piper. Kazuba (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Something quite rare

Have you ever experienced Jamais vu? I have only once in my life. Driving a route I had followed very very often. Twice when I was sick with severe clinical depression I shared near to exact visual hallucinations Folie A Duex with my wife. I played dumb and quizzed her on what she saw. Yep, same thing. For this I suspect emotional contagion in a very unusual form. Kazuba (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, but just this moment I had a random urge to open my Wikipedia talk page. A moment later your message appeared. So I guess telepathy exists. Watch for my scientific paper in Nature (magazine). - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Cryptozoology

Presumably that was a regular editor logged out, I commented on the IP's talk page. Of course, I have no idea who it could be. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Bigfoot in popular culture

Probably a good idea to keep this on your watch list. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation of Cryptozoolgy Articles

A Mediation Cabal (Informal Mediation) case to which you have been named a party has come up for mediation by Ronk01 talk. Please navigate to the casepage, located here: [4], and leave an opening statement as instructed there. You will also need to sign your agreement to the mediation there. If all listed parties do not sign, the case will be referred to RFC and closed immediately. You will be updated on further progress of the mediation on your talk page. 14:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks

...For your thoughtful yet largely unhelpful comments on my UserTalk page. Seeing as you and I disagree on the adequate application of policy as well as a disturbing trend emerging surrounding the stalking of my edits, I am arriving at the conclusion that your comments are not altruistically-driven or even remotely accurate. I politely request that you make every effort to avoid posting to my page in the future, except in those instances where notification is mandated. I will extend your the same courtesy, and I will view a breach of my request as harassment. This might alter at some future point, but I am fairly convinced that we have little in the way of positive commentary to offer one another at this time. Good editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Times

Just out of interest, is the times considered a tabloid on here? I hadn't gotten that impression but I'm happy to be corrected. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, The Times is not a tabloid, however "Uri Geller's Weird Web" weekly column is listed as carried by The Times "Interface". It seems to be more entertainment rather than news. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Cottrell

I've commented on your comment here; feel free to reply. Ironholds (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

When the AfD was re-listed to generate "additional discussion" I don't think they meant by us ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate it...

Just want to let you know, I really appreciate your help on the ufology articles and, really, all your work on FTN issues. jps (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I imagine most of the UFOlogy articles were created back in the bad old days of Wikipedia when "piling up KB" was the rule, as they all seem to be written from a default-credible "inside ufology" perspective. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

FTN template

I don't know. i changed the size from 39 to 40 and now it seems to be working. hope you had a happy new year. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

SSRM and SMART

Can you please be more specific in your comments because you've nominated for deletion and commented on a lot of topics surrounded all of the articles i have posted. I spent the last 2 months slowly translating all of these materials from russian and comparing to anything i could find from scientific journals and other websites to post these articles which i believe are very important. i don't have any affiliation with that company. I have however met both scientists as I am a researcher myself and you and a small handful of people are undoing a lot of hard work I put into these articles with a lot less care than I put into them which I don't appreciate. For any reference I have provided the standard that is seemingly required will never be met regardless of updates or references I provide so I would like to ask for your help in keeping these articles afloat and what I should do to help. I'm finding a lot of bias from what people casually find in a google search and their own common knowledge and only to what is available in english than any other possible source real or questionable otherwise. Please and thank you.--Newyork48 (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies can be very difficult for new editors to grasp, especially concerning what's notable, what constitutes a reliable source, primary vs. secondary sources, original research, etc. so please don't take the nominations for deletion personally. It is likely that any of the material contained in these articles that meets WP notability and reliable source policies will be folded into the Igor Smirnov (scientist) article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My concern here is that all the emphasis is being put on a scientist who is no longer alive for that reason. but both men and the pages describing the technologies they discovered have good reference-able material from book publishers and scientific journals. I'm doing my best not to take it personally but i put a lot of time in trying to do it the right way so again any specific advice you can give me to save some of the last 3 weeks of my life would be appreciated, lol. I obviously want to provide the best reference-able materials to prove the claims i made on the pages. most of the material is in original russian however i do have english patent applications, and scientific journals where i got all of my information from in english and its all there. please help me keep these alive somehow, thank you!--Newyork48 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As others have said, there are problems with the sources you've presented. In the case of Mr. Ioffe, a collection of published papers don't establish this person's notability. There are specific criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria that must be met. If you feel there are sources needing some special consideration (e.g. Russian media) you might take your case to the Notability Noticeboard, or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Regarding SSRM and SMART, these concepts don't appear to be the subject of serious and prominent coverage, and so fall under Wikipedia:Fringe_theories. I am sorry for the time you've invested, but please recognize that Wikipedia policies don't take an editor's personal effort into account when considering whether or not a subject is appropriate for inclusion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Radio

I'm sorry I didn't get your message on my talk page...I never received a new message warning for some reason :/ I've never edited at Radio, I don't believe, and don't know anything about the situation. The first thing I notice is using "HAM" instead of "ham" in his version of the section rewrite, which is patently ridiculous. In the edit you point out, he seems to be adding quite a UK flavour to the section, which isn't appropriate, though it doesn't seem to be carried over to the rewrite. To that end, I've left my review of the situation (diff), and let it be known that I wrote it as a neutral party and as an honest comparison of the two versions. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde

Hi. That article is out of control. I think it is Mrs Kilde herself who distorts it anonymously. In any case I will refrain from any further editing because it would be silly to engage in edit wars with anonymous users. You may take a look anyway. Have a nice day!--Dipa1965 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding! I was wondering whether I was wrong with her attitudes. Sometimes I am a bit touchy, I admit.--Dipa1965 (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The troll is still trolling but I will not bite the bait. I wonder why it is not permanently blocked, though.--Dipa1965 (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Watseka Wonder

You made disappointed.for over a day i had discussed about Dr stevensons and his works with Strikerforce and Phearson and my sources made them satisfy and i do not have enough time to detail all of our discussion again for you.if just look at the referencess like archive.org or Further reading sections you will be satisfied too .If you want to get more information about this article you can go to archive.org then download Dr stevenson pamphlet about personality disorder (about 70 pages),read it and then if it was not verifiable and was worthless ,your idea about deletion is true.remember we all try to expand knowledge for domain public and mus not do something else against it.--Navid1366 (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Rense

I agree that Rense is not a reliable source, but much of the material on it is just reprints of material from appropriate sources. You seem to be deleting citations without regard to the underlying source. Please review your deletions and restore any where the original source can be cited instead.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a good example: [5]. If you follow the link you'll see the source information. The right thing to do would be to copy that in place of the Rense link.   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Will. I can't agree with Rense.com being an OK source for reprints. In many cases they tack on their own "comments" to the reprints. In the example you gave [6] scroll down the page past the article and you'll see stuff about "the anthrax attack plot, sanctioned by our Govt and CIA". But I get the point about tracking back to the original sources, so I'll review my edits to see if there's anything worth saving, more or less like this. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

FTN thread moved to ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Paranormal places

Proposed merge of Category:Reportedly haunted locations into Category:Paranormal places. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_24#Category:Reportedly_haunted_locations. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 16:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Article of cow urine

How you got interested in the article of cow urine ? -Abhijeet Safai 06:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Normandy.jpg

Hi, I nominated it for deletion from commons.Unless you can prove the ad's copyright wasn't renewed, it may still be under copyright and can't be loaded onto commons. ut it should be fine to reload directly onto EN:WP with a fair use justification. Psu256 (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wondering if this comment [7]

Means you now favor some sort of infobox? If you could clarify here [8] [9] Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that most of the rest of us just do not care that much. We have half a dozen editors who edit the TM subject area exclusively. The organization has a well known PR firm to promote itself. This is just one of many pseudo-scientific claims I try to address. But overall I prefer to deal with medical science. Attempted to address the issue of COI editing in the past but Wikipedia does not take these matter seriously. Thus the best I can do is attempt to get a prominent position for the scientific viewpoint to balance the opinions of those who practice / support whatever issue is at hand.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Interplanetary phenomena unit

Consensus [10] was for deletion. Please don't recreate the article under another name. Cheers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's relative to pop culture. Why the redirect? Was it mentioned in the article someplace? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the article deletion discussion took place in 2008, I was not involved. You can try WP:DELREV deletion review if you like. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great. I am a relatively new contributer here on Wikipedia, so my edits may not always be within the norm. For that I apologize. Thanks for your time! :) -Poodle of Doom (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Leonora Piper

All of my additions are properly footnoted. The article as it existed was clearly biased, I simply made it closer to balanced. I have created this user to make communication easier. Apollion888 (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hodgson exposed numerous frauds but when he encountered Mrs. Piper, he found no evidence of it whatsoever. This is not fringe, it is the historical record.

I appreciate that what you are doing, by your definition, is "good." The more people like you I encounter, the more compassion I have. But facts are not fringe, and after my next update I will push the issue to mediation and see what happens. Apollion888 (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but please take all article discussion to the article Talk page. Makes things easier. Cheers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jersey Devil

Please take a look at some of the edits I've made to the Jersey Devil page. I've tried to use more reliable, or at least more respected, sources to expand the article. I hope to expand on the origin of the legend also, but not until the sources I use get the all clear. Thanks. Angrybeerman (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Also, apologies for the sloppy reference list. I'm still unsure how to use it properly. Angrybeerman (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you on the BBC page, and I would have no qualms if the parts sourced from that are deleted. I did however, make sure to use the 'devilhunters' website only when it quoted actual newspaper articles. Angrybeerman (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For changing your opinion on a matter ... a rare event in WP, which is too often dominated by immovable, extreme viewpoints. Noleander (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Question about Nordic aliens article

Hi. I noticed that, back in the day, you added this as a reference to the Nordic aliens article. However, it's not clear to me if it actually discusses Nordic aliens anywhere. Do you remember anything about that reference? Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 02:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Google book preview will no longer let me view page 200 where the relevant passage apparently is located. No, I don't recall the exact words of it, except that it actually supported the sentence that the cite was placed in. Sorry. Thanks for fixing up an article that had deteriorated to the point where it was unclear whether or not the concept was even notable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but you may be able to see, using "Search in this book", the desired snippet. Try synonyms. This also works with books that offer only snippet view. Also check Amazon, to see if "Look Inside!" helps. Also, this search produces Mack's book itself, and others. Good luck with the AfD. I love forensic sourcing. --Lexein (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Mack wrote that some abductee claimants mentioned Nordic-featured aliens, and Showalter subsequently summarized what Mack wrote. Not sure there is anything new to add from those sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, everyone. I did try a few different things to see if I could view that page, but haven't had any luck. It's OK; I'll look elsewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 17:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Mothman

I'm trying to figure out why you erased my talk message here about Mothman. Please respond. Western Fortean (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you actually going to discuss it there? Western Fortean (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Telepathy

Please don't revert the lede material there without discussion (on the article's talk page), thanks. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediumship

Very nice clean-up, turning impenetrable prose into exemplary Wikipedia text. Thanks! MartinPoulter (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And here I was thinking this was a thankless volunteer job! ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Controversy

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-12/Bigfoot for a discussion over bias in Bigfoot and Cryptozoology.

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Leonora Piper

Please replace my data. If you had looked you will see it is taken from a published work. So it is not priamary it is secondary. Richard Hodgson by A.T. Baird was published by Psychic Press Limited, London. 1949. They have changed the title and author's name it is now known as: The Life of Richard Hodgson by Alex Baird. Using a first edition I was unaware of that. [11] [12] How hard did you look for my published source before you deleted my data? Are you gonna tell me now that publisher is invalid because you don't like it? It is not a major or American publisher?.... or a no longer existing publisher? [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazuba (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Milton William Cooper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bethesda Hospital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

list of titles tells reader nothing of real significance about their content

Please stop it. You are obviously pedantically misusing Wikipedia Guidelines to censor content on this article. I've seen your obsessions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_YouTube_a_RS_for_Milton_William_Cooper.3F and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Milton_William_Cooper - I'm not going to revert the removal of the Youtube links, but I am going to continue to be a force for the inclusion of the list of Radio broadcasts. These broadcasts exist. They are verifiable by simply listening to them, whether you listen to them on youtube or not. Frankly "list of titles tells reader nothing of real significance about their content" is a one of the most absurd excuses I've ever heard for someone censoring Wikipedia content in all my 4000+ edits here. Please tell us why you are so obsessed with handicapping the value of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia? The list of radio broadcasts on Mystery Babylon is a valuable part of cooper's life, so tell us what harm you think will happen if this list remains in Wikipedia? Also I am not a 'fan' of cooper. I have no views on whether Cooper is a force for good or bad. I just just want Wikpiedia to be an inclusive work regardless of my own views, your views or anyone else's views. Vexorg (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And further ..... I see you are using negative ammunition against me as another editor by stating the following here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Milton_William_Cooper .... "an editor active on David Duke and similar articles insists...." - Are you really trying to use my edits at the David Duke Article as negative points against me? You are making yourself look stupid. I'm not a fan of David Duke either, he has some abhorrent views, but despite that I'm not afraid to go for accuracy on Wikipedia even on subjects which are about contentious and majority disliked people. So you really want to censor Wikipedia to lessen the coverage of peopel and subejcts that you personally find distasteful? if so you should consider your value as a Wikipedia editor. Vexorg (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A problem

User Melodychick has deliberately gone on about 50 or so separate articles trying to link them to the ethereal being article just to make sure that the article does not get merged or deleted. I find this totally unacceptable, this user is not trying to help the article, now we have over 50 articles with ethereal being on it. GreenUniverse (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point I just noticed some have been delinked my mistake, I can't get my head round it, as on the article itself this user doesn't want any of it deleted. We will have to see what others think about this issue. GreenUniverse (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion

If you have the time, it would be interesting to get your opinion on this article: Morya (Theosophy), I consider it one of the worst articles on wikipedia, I believe articles should be improved but this article is not worth working on. It is filled with original research from top to bottom, no third party reliable references at all, nothing. Last month or so I submitted it to be deleted, but at the last minute a Theosophist entered the debate and it was two votes to one, so I lost out. This user agreed he would try and help the article but as predicted he has since not logged in. The article is mostly copy and paste from two Theosophist books, absolute wild claims and crank talk, it is hard to even understand what the article is saying. Most of the articles content is already found on the Ascended Master article, so I do not see why we need the article at all, as it is mostly original research and fringe pushing from the Theosophist crowd and copied material. GreenUniverse (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ham Radio

Thanks for the comment on antennas. I am FAR away from being an active ham these days, but when that stuff gets in your blood as a kid, it stays in there forever, I think. Interesting to see the articles you started. My first receiver back in 1953 or so was homebrew, then I upgraded to my beloved SX-28. My first transmitter as WN3BOA in 1955 was a Johnson Viking Adventurer. Somewhere along the way I also had a Hammarlund HQ-129 and/or HQ-140 (as I remember the model numbers). Lou Sander (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello LuckyLouie. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion regarding Kriya Yoga

Dear LuckyLouie,

Thanks for your opinion in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#kriyayogashyamacharan.org_-_reliable_source

My only endeavor is to provide the right info to Wiki and its readers. At times, might be, my expressions have been misguiding. But, to be honest, I tried my best to convey the proper info. With supporting evidences from the most eminent and independent websites and newspapers.

I need your help to sort this out.

Advance thanks and warm regards,

Akash 2011 (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

73 Amateur Radio Today

I am one of the contributors to 73 magazine. My name is Henryk Kotowski, call sign SM0JHF. You can search the index of the magazine. Several cover pictures and stories submitted by me and accepted by the publisher were used in the magazine. However most of them have not been paid for as agreed in advance. Buckamaster scanned the magazines and offered the digital files for sale. HamCall, which is the new name of the same company, admits that the digital files will not be available for sale until 70 years after the death of the authors. Please stop removing my editons from Wikipedia. Read the information on HamCall.net: 73 Magazine Archives Online 73 Magazine was Buckmaster's first effort into offering the archives of a magazine online. Unfortunately, due to various royalty and copyright issues that existed between contributing authors and 73 Magazine, it doesn't look likely that we will ever be able to actually show the full-size images.

If there are any images of my articles posted on the web, it is illegal. Kotoviski (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OR Discussion

I responded to your last comments. It actually does concern what is in the article, and I have elaborated there. The link is here, I can't remember how to make it pretty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#No_Article_Yet pschemp | talk 19:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Subtle body

I am in the process of sorting out the subtle body article, it is looking better, but we need a scientific evaluation section. On the article it currently reads in one line "The existence of subtle bodies is unconfirmed by the mainstream scientific community" but no reference is given. If you have time, I need some help trying to find some sources for this. GreenUniverse (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick copyedit to the lead. Article seems very clear that we're talking about a subject as seen within esoteric belief systems, so no need for any scientific perspective (and I doubt you'd find any). BTW, did you straighten out Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eidolon_(apparition)? It somehow was not listed at the AfD page for that day, hence there's no article template on the discussion page and no one knows it's up for AfD. May be you have to delete it and start over. Sometimes Twinkle doesn't finish the action and you're left with half an AfD filed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I see, the subtle stuff is esoteric/religious do it does not concern science. I have messed the AfD up regarding the Eidolon article, I will have to wait til it ends, the article will be kept but it is a mess. GreenUniverse (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it will end, since it's not listed, no Admin will see it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Theres also this article here Root race which has some serious problems. The problem with this article is it actually claims to be scientific. Of course the only people who believe in the root races are Theosophists. Theres no third party reliable references for this root race stuff, some of the references are also wrong. The article uses the book from Arthur Powell, but thats about it, Powell was a Theosophist. Martin Gardner did a couple of pages on the root race theme, but thats about it. Its hard to find the concept of root races outside of Theosophist books. I personally think the article should be redirected to the section on the Blavatsky article, where already in detail is it discussed. GreenUniverse (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The place where it claims to be scientific did not jump out at me. Maybe you can specify. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is written as factual, similar points have already brought up on the talk page. When you read it, it reads like this has actually happened and is real history, the article does not make it clear that it is a tiny fringe view or in contradiction to accepted science. As I understand it, the article is not a religious belief either, Blavatsky in her book presents the root race as already proved science. GreenUniverse (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Then this is a good candidate for listing at WP:FTN to solicit opinions on whether or not there is WP:UNDUE weight on the concept. Especially if Blavatsky and Powell are the only sources of discussion about it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Article has come back

You might be interested Ethereal beings GreenUniverse (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's still redirected to Non-physical entity. Did it come back in some other way I'm missing? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes a user had restored the entire article with all the content from the ethereal being article. He/she will probably do the same again, but it has been redirected for now. GreenUniverse (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thoroughness is always appreciated.

Just a quick note, I've avoided commenting further on the OR board as it will inevitably lead to further squabbling, but I just wanted to say thank-you for the clarity in your answers, without it, I can pretty much guarantee you were going to be used as proof that the OR board agreed with his point of view regarding Seddon, and/or Momento's opinion of Rawat's situation. -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

lol, I stand corrected, he's not done trying to find a way you agree with him...No good deed they say... . -- Maelefique^(talk) 00:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Explain to me

Could you please explain to me how I have misrepresented editors and put forward a straw man argument? Thanks.Momento (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It will all be gone through at ANI, the mediators there can explain it in detail if it's really needed. It's hardly necessary to chase this guy to his talk page after he's already made it very clear he's not going to play (I believe that's a quote). You could always read this and it should be clear, the first sentence there says it all. -- Maelefique^(talk) 20:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Vassula Ryden". Thank you. --Sasanack (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Harple article

Hello. I just wanted to point out a minor inaccuracy in the Daniel_Harple page. Daniel Harple didn't found GyPSii/GeoSolutions solely, he was actually co-founder, and I (Sam Critchley) was the other co-founder. . Daniel was CEO of GeoSolutions (and later Chairman and CEO of GeoSentric, which was also previously known as Benefon), and I was VP of Products. Rich Pizzarro was involved from 2007 onwards, and then we recruited other people (including a team of existing Benefon employees in Salo, Finland) from 2007 onwards. I actually started a predecessor location-based mobile phone software service called A2B in 2003/2004, then met Dan Harple in early 2006. We talked for some months about how we could build something new based on extending the A2B functionality. Then in 2007 we incorporated as a company.

I'd prefer if you could alter sentences referring to Daniel Harple having founded GyPSii or GeoSolutions, and the sentence beginning with "Harple is credited with the initial creation of GyPSii [...]" to reflect the co-founding role.SamCritch (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response on my talk page LuckyLouie. Some of the references I provided in the comments here above should be useful, including GyPSii's own blog where Daniel Harple is listed as co-founder, and Daniel Harple's own site which says "In 2006, he co-founded and was Chairman & CEO of gypsii, which now provides the location-based social media engine driving China's fastest growing Twitter-like microblog, Sina Weibo." SamCritch (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes LuckyLouie. Indeed, the dates are vague, partly because we were demonstrating the first prototype version of the app (on Windows Mobile) in 2006, but didn't incorporate GeoSolutions B.V. until early 2007, just before the Benefon/GeoSentric acquisition. In fact, the app was named GyPSii in April 2007, before that we'd been using the name GeoPlaceSpace. SamCritch (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

CCI Notice

Hello, LuckyLouie. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus 03:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Hardworker.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hardworker.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus 04:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Scr299.png

A tag has been placed on File:Scr299.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Marcus Qwertyus 04:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wirelesset19.png

A tag has been placed on File:Wirelesset19.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Marcus Qwertyus 04:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Art13.png

A tag has been placed on File:Art13.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Marcus Qwertyus 04:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LuckyLouie. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/LuckyLouie.
Message added 00:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Marcus Qwertyus 00:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Ethereal beings for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ethereal beings is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethereal beings until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.Smallman12q (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "2012: Newmac Expedition"

Hi LuckyLouie. Can you please explain what part fails the Wikipedia: Notability guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manvscode (talk • contribs) 19:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Answered on article Talk page here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Lucky Louie

You're no good can't you see
Lucky Louie Louie Louie
I'm in love set her free
Oh she's only lookin' to me
Only love breaks her heart
Lucky Louie Louie Louie
Only love's paradise
Oh she's only lookin' to me

Lucky Louie Louie Louie
Oh she's only lookin' to me
Oh let it Louie
She's under cover
Lucky Louie Louie Louie
Oh doin' what he's doin'
So leave it Louie
'cause I'm her lover

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gromeblargh (talk • contribs)

Explain

Please the other sources then, because it is a reliable source from the author otherwise the article should not be in Wikipedia--74.34.78.100 (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nickell is considered a reliable and independent source. If you have questions about how to determine reliable sources you can ask at our reliable sources noticeboard. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, forgive me, if only the author hadn't made a horror story out of them and more factual it would be agreeable thanks anyway, just testing for honest user, but please join the WP:Teahouse--74.34.78.100 (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Sp600.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sp600.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LuckyLouie. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amateur radio.
Message added 22:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I don't want to spam you, but I think this is important, and would like to know your opinion. Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

please offer your opinion on the latest events on the parapsychology talk page. Ghosts Ghouls (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

..

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

SCR-108

couple pics recently floated to the surface, Brian in denver (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Award

		The Hitting the Nail on the Head Award
		I hereby present you with the prestigious Nail on the Head award for this admirably expressed objection to having a section on "Extant species previously thought to be cryptids" in Cryptozoology: We wouldn't have a stand-alone section in our Fringe science article titled "Extant science previously thought to be fringe" that was just a bare list of things like continental drift, existence of Troy, heliocentrism, Norse colonization of the Americas, and Big Bang Theory. Or a section of our Conspiracy theories article entitled "Extant conspiracies previously thought to be conspiracy theories".[14] Bishonen | talk 21:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC).

Hooray! - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Intrasomatic model

Hello I saw some of your posts on the fringe noticeboard. I am afraid I do not know how to put an article up for deletion, the Intrasomatic model is a fringe theory self published in one book, it is not notable. Can you put it up for afd? Fodor Fan (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Sieber Benner

This text has been considerably cut and altered by many editors that comes out of the blues and changes thinks as they feel like as if their versions are better than what it was. There were more information that people would have appreciated that had deemed (subjectively) unfit for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not as it used to be, it is sad. The editors are not even certified nor official, they just come from the mass who ever they are, imposes themselves as "improvist" editors, and pretend they have authority to control what has to be in Wikipedia or not and interpret the rules and the guidelines as they want with no coherence between one editor and the other... Basically, Wikipedia is a mess without any clue. I am surprised that there is at least good material, somehow incomplete (no thanks from the editors), but thank God there is Creators, that creates something. Yes Thank God for the Creators of pages for they make Wikipedia. The job of editors is to cut out real garbage, but from their zeal, they cut out more than they should have. Sometimes ignorance is to blame. They ignore the value of things, so they classify them as "nonsense" as if they pretentiously know everything there is to know. --Fady Lahoud (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Fake cites

Well done. If you are keeping track and he doesn't respond/prove they are legitimate, remind me please so I can block him. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked him. Dougweller (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Other users' pages

Re [15]: please review Wikipedia:User_pages#On_others.27_user_pages. To wit, if you have a concern with another user's page the first step is to discuss it with them, not edit their page. NE Ent 21:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This is ironic. I was going to send *you* a gentle reminder when you forgot to notify User:‪Portolanero‬ on his Talk page after you created Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Portolanero/subpages. But I figured it probably just slipped your mind, so I did it myself. No worries. Cheers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

GyPSii, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: CCI

Not a problem, glad to help. You're actually one of the few not only willing to help out with it but, much more importantly, actually fixes the articles when they're noted. Sure I found a couple iffy spots but 99% of your fixes were just what was needed. I'm always willing to try and tackle those first to help those users return to normality in their editing. Wizardman 02:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One

Not sure if you picked up on all the Paul Bedson socks, but you were talking to one here. I think he was having a go at you. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, LuckyLouie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hey there

I'm unwatching AN/I, since I'm getting a bit too involved in everything...can you let me know if anything meaningful happens in the Damonthesis section(s)? Thanks, Ansh666 21:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I must admit I've unwatched AN/I for the same reasons! - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Aww, oh well. I'll just check back occasionally then, I guess. Cheers, Ansh666 23:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

List of reportedly haunted locations in the United States

Hi, there has been a lot of unsourced and unreferenced material added to the article List of reportedly haunted locations in the United States in the last 2 days by IP 98.83.29.168. I have warned the editor against disruptive editing on his/her talk page and I see that you have done the same also. I would like to undo some of the unreferenced information and the copyright violations, but it is just too much and dispersed all over the article. What does one do in such cases?Ochiwar (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted to the "last good version" before the massive additions of unverified and copyvios. You may want to clean the dozen or so additions previous to that date. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

S.P.R.

I think it is important to reveal the Society for Psychical Research's purpose is to understand "events and abilities commonly described as psychic or paranormal by promoting and supporting important research in this area" and to "examine allegedly paranormal phenomena in a scientific and unbiased way." It does not however, since its inception in 1882, hold any corporate opinions: SPR members have a variety of beliefs or lack thereof about the reality and nature of the phenomena studied, and some sceptics have been active members of the Society. William James, Eleanor Sidgwick, Oliver Lodge, Andrew Lang and Richard Hodgson and the members of the SPR certainly believed they were taking, and are still taking, a scientific approach to their subject. The problem was and is that they are not always qualified to do this task. This is something to which they are unaware and are unwilling to confess. Pride. It is like Robert Todd Carroll asking me if "Christianity is based on mass Folie a Billion?" That is a question based on an ignorance of the ancient past religions, critical ancient history, and modern psychology. Kazuba (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kazuba. I'm not currently active at the Society for Psychical Research article, so you may want to discuss your ideas at that article's Talk page. Hope all is well with you. Regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Basically the article already has said the procecceding for a long while without my criticism I just thought I would just pass it on to you. I got the impression you trusted nothing written or approved by the S.P.R.. I am getting by. Lately I met [16] Fordor Fan He has an interest in 19th century and early 20th century mediums.

Fodor, You may want to see this Church and Spiritualism by Herbert Thurston S.J.,1933, Chapter 9, The Accordian Playing of D.D. Home, pages 167-187 [17]. Kazuba (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Kazuba (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you guys can look into Arthur Ford. It seems to have some problems. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I added new external links to Arthur Ford. Not sure I did it correctly have links following entry Kazuba (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked over your edit job of Arthur Ford. We certainly disagree on on the meaning and value of history. That Ford told conflicting stories of his life, lectured on magic, and an example of his fishing readings, I thought had value. Obviously we disagree on the value of biography, details and brevity. I would imagine autobiography has no value to you at all. Whatever. For example, Captain James Cook's journals of this travels across the world mean nothing to you because Cook wrote them? Kazuba (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kazuba. I removed lengthy sections of text at Arthur Ford that were obviously cut and pasted from primary (and some secondary) sources because they run afoul of WP:COPYVIO and WP:OR: policies which I assume you are familiar with. I also think you're aware that material included in Wikipedia articles isn't intended to be based on what an individual editor feels has "value". Rather, we go by what objective reliable sources feel has value. The amount of space we give it is in direct proportion to the WP:WEIGHT given to it by those sources. (Hence we don't have five paragraphs discussing details of Captain Cook's compass.) Also I think you've misinterpreted something found on my User page. I admire "brevity" (and dislike walls of text) in places such as User pages and Talk pages. I was not referring to article space. I'd not object to anyone (you included) building up the Arthur Ford article using material from objective reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I used the the only materials I thought were reliable, and I did cherry pick. I don't think Milbourne Christopher made stuff up about Ford lecturing on magic. I don't think Ford's fishing reading was made up, or the effect he got on a client when he got a good hit on a deceased child. I don't think his biographers lied when they said Ford made up stories about his life. Or that Ford did not dazzle Arthur Conan Doyle and that Ford had his secretary burn materials. We have different views of history. What you don't like is a personal choice. It is not based on objectivity or value. It is based on whim. Whatever. I still have fun researching and writing about people that interest me. I really don't care if it gets deleted. I enjoyed the quest. I don't think you do. I have seen you add nothing to these entries just take away. I am sorry but my stuff is for the curious child, like myself. A curiosity we certainly do not share. I think you will find when it comes to writing history one is allowed to quote. Kazuba (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you could possibly know me, my views, or my motivations based on a few articles where we've interacted, but I'll leave you to your own beliefs. On a completely different subject, I picked up Fooling Houdini at the library a few months ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. Highly recommended if you haven't read it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Kazuba if you read Inside the Medium's Cabinet by the magician/spiritualist debunker Joseph Dunninger there are two long chapters in debunking Ford. [18] and Ruth Brandon also discusses some of it in her The Life and Many Deaths of Harry Houdini. These would be useful references if you still want to work on the article. Fodor Fan (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

HAARP and the EU

Did anything ever come of this? I'm inclined to take it out of the conspiracy theory section if here wasn't ever any actual inquiry. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

[19] is the primary source document. From what I can tell, there was never any follow up to this. Here's the only mention I could find of it made by a secondary source, which cites "environmental concerns" and leaves out the conspiracy stuff. A brief mention also appears here in one of our other secondary sources. While it appears to have been a hearing within a subcommittee and there was no actual "inquiry" I think the article is better for mentioning it in a rational context. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Paranormal Witness may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

List of reportedly haunted locations in the United States

Hi can you have a look at the above article when you have the time? An IP address is busy editing adding one particular Non- WP:RS website as a reference in a massive way. Thanks Ochiwar (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis

Re: Norseen Can you elaborate on how you believe those sources have been misused? I think it's a pretty good analysis of the picture he provided of the state of modern mind control technology in the private sector.

Re: Psychotronic Weapons The main paragraph uses a number of sources that I do not believe appear in mindjustice, and the synthesis is completely different from that site. There is practically no analysis or editor opinion interjected. This information is well sourced, from government produced information in the US and USSR. Please elaborate on your "issue" with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs)

please see article for Frederic William Henry Myers and the abuse comments on the talkpage, I need some help on this issue.Doubter12 (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Operation Trojan Horse

You see? The article got deleted. Nobody even warned me that it was being considered for deletion. It was deleted as "original research", and somebody said there was no way to back up what was written. What about reading the book? I think this is totally unfair. Tell me, why do people take it upon themselves to delete articles which others have written? What good do they think they're doing? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Take your complaint to whoever deleted it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

And do you think it should have been deleted? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:John Keel. LuckyLouie (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LuckyLouie. You have new messages at Talk:List of hoaxes.
Message added 20:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE: List of hoaxes

Hello, and thanks for your contributions to WP. I have no problem with your edits on the above article since you have commented on the talk page. I had just restored a removal without comment and then it was removed again. I think your evaluation of the sources and notability of Robert Salas is entirely adequate to warrant removal. I now have noticed that sources 2 and 3 were written by the editor who placed Salas and Hastings on the list, clearly WP:OR. I appreciate that you had provided a clear edit summary. Keep up the good work, I don't ever mean to slow the improvement of WP by conscientious editors such as yourself. Sorry to have created a flummox on an issue that should have been pretty clear. MrBill3 (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Piri Reis

How did I miss such a major case of WP:UNDUE? Mainstream scholarship has no doubts about this map. As for the Air Force, the only evidence for its involvement is Hapgood, whose ideas dominate this article. I'm busy now but Hapgood's bit needs serious pruning. Have you compared it to Charles Hapgood? Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can prune Hapgood, but I'm unfamiliar with the mainstream opinion on the Piri Reis Map and which other opinions should take more precedence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I brutalized the whole section and reduced Hapgood to one of a succession of names. We spend way too much time in these articles spelling out the wrong-headed positions. McIntosh and Dutch seem to me to be sufficiently good sources, as I found for instance another work citing McIntosh as the standard analysis of Hapgood's claims. I found a third source here which seems sound, but I didn't have time to try to incorporate it. Mangoe (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Daryl Bem

Hi, I see you reverted two recent edits I made to the Daryl Bem biography. [20] Your edit summary, "Response is to coverage in NYT, Guardian, other sources, not just peer reviewed", makes little sense to me. The Alcock material you reverted back into the article has nothing to do with coverage in the NYT, Guardian, etc. Nor does your edit summary seem to engage the policies I cited in making my edits. Could you explain further? -- 92.2.70.41 (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Re these edits: there's nothing in WP:RS that says peer reviewed sources may only be used to criticize something that has been peer reviewed. I also see you tried to remove something else claiming it fell under WP:CRYSTAL when it did not. Since you've only been on Wikipedia a few days, you might want to take the time to review these policies. Cheers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I cited a combination of WP:UNDUE and WP:RS, if a source meets some standard of reliability that does not mean it merits inclusion in an article i.e. it is a matter of what weight it is appropriate to give a source, for instance, based on how reliable the source in question is. Given that scholarly criticism published in reputable journals is relatively abundant in this case, and that some of that criticism is already included in the article e.g. Wagenmakers et al. (2011) and Francis (2012), why do you feel that a non-peer-reviewed magazine article should be included? With regard to your second point, I cited WP:UNDUE and WP:CBALL. Undue, because of all the reliable sources available very few of them seem to mention Wiseman's registry, essentially because no meta-analysis has appeared (it was apparently submitted for publication well over a year ago). Looking back at the latter policy, I think you're correct that citing it in this case was a mistake, but the primary issue of weight remains. And to your final point, no, I am not new here. -- 92.2.70.41 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you other Wikipedia accounts? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting response, none, unless you are counting IP addresses, in which case some addresses from the 92.4.* and 92.2.* ranges. -- 92.2.70.41 (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If you feel including wide criticism of a study that was widely criticized is WP:UNDUE, or that csicop.org is a questionable source, it's best to make your case on the article Talk page where other opinions can be sought to form consensus on the issue. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page you'll see that there is a current section discussing weight issues to which I had posted prior to my edits. Will you participate there? -- 92.2.70.41 (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Telephone telepathy

Hi. I saw that you placed a merge tag on Telephone telepathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As this is now at AfD, I've removed the merge tag. However, I also see that no rationale was apparently given on the proposed destination article talk page, per WP:MERGEPROP. I expect this was just an oversight - but obviously there's unlikely to be much discussion on a proposed merge unless a rationale is stated. Old merge tags with no rationale given are liable to be removed by others without notification. I hope that's all OK and makes sense. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I agree and have removed the tag. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! -- Trevj (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Eddy Bros

Louie thanks for your comment. I was going to perm retire from wiki a few weeks ago as I am moving to NZ in October and am getting ready but I decided to stay on here a few extra weeks to finish off some of the articles. I know about the Eddy brothers. I will work on that by the end of the week. Cheers. Blastfighter (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have made a start on the Eddy Brothers article, unfortunately it is extremely hard to find skeptical material or magic books revealing the tricks of these brothers. Most sources out there seem to be credulous unreliable spiritualist sources, however, the magician Chung Ling Soo exposed one of their tricks (with a sketch) which I have added to the article. Blastfighter (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Their main trick seems to have been the use of a fake lead hand... of course this was used so that the medium could then have a hand free to perform movement of the instruments or objects behind the curtain. Soo discusses it in detail, but there's a small mention of it in this science magazine from 1919. [21] Blastfighter (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Louie. There's nothing else I can do for the Eddy Bothers page I am afraid, I have looked everywhere. For some reason most magicians and spiritualist debunkers like David Abbott, Joseph Dunninger, Joseph McCabe or Joseph Rinn did not discuss the tricks of the Eddy brothers, instead it seems most attention went to the Davenport brothers. The only two sources I have seen which documented their tricks I added were by Chung Ling Soo and Hereward Carrington. I have decided to perm retire from this website, I've said this before but ended coming back twice! It's a very addictive subject but I don't have time to do it anymore, I spent countless nights editing on this website and it has to come to an end as I am very busy in real life and have many plans. One article you may want to fix if you have some time is the Enfield Poltergeist article. There's a source here by Joe Nickell that may be useful[22]. You may want to monitor some of the spiritualist articles, I understand sometimes they try and add fringe sources of POV. Thanks for your interest. Take care! Blastfighter (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shortwave listening

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shortwave listening you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of North8000 -- North8000 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shortwave listening

The article Shortwave listening you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shortwave listening for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of North8000 -- North8000 (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ham Radio, etc.

I looked you up from the Sheldrake talk page. What a surprise! I have a LOT of longstanding personal affinity for a bunch of the articles you started, specifically: Vintage, SX-28, Homebrew, Astatic, SCR-536, Hammarlund, and E.F. Johnson. The same exists with some that you have improved, especially WRL.

I got into SWL-ing and ham radio as a kid in the early 1950s. I was active as W3BOA for about ten years from 1955. I still have my ticket, but haven't been on the air in 40+ years. My best friend from early ham days, W3APR, just passed away a week ago, so I have been recalling a lot of those very old things and the very good times that they involved. That stuff gets in your blood, and you never can get rid of it. Some of my early ham stuff is chronicled on a personal web page HERE. It might bring back some memories for you, too. 73, Lou Sander (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Lou. You were a lucky guy to have an SX-28 back in the day, I bet it was a real pleasure to operate. I got 2 SX-28 basket cases in 2005 and made one fully restored receiver out of them, I ended up going through every inch of the chassis. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I made a kit valve radio in the early or mid 50s. Can't remember the make. I almost got into ham radio but couldn't be bothered with learning Morse, didn't see the point. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I can relate. I didn't really appreciate Morse until sometime in my 20s. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Franek Kluski

I noticed you had problems with this article in 2009. I have tried to fix it up. The magician Heredia revealed how the "spirit" hands were made [23] Fodor Fan (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Just completed the Kluski article. I will finish the Tina Resch article later today. Fodor Fan (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I did as much as I could on the Tina Resch article. Won't be editing it anymore. I add as many references as I could find, she was indeed a hoaxer. Fodor Fan (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help with the Sean Morton article, he's too modern to me. Like all supposed psychic stuff remote viewing is a scam but I haven't kept up to date with it (David Marks covers the flaws with remote viewing experiments in his book The Psychology of the Psychic). I am most well read in older stuff. A useful book is A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology written in 1985 it's over 700 pages and covers lots of stuff up until that period. I am retiring at the end of the day, I will have a go at Gef though before I leave. Fodor Fan (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Ted Serios article is a serious mess. Unfortunately there are only a handful of skeptical sources that mention Serios. I might have a brief go at it after I have finished the gef article. Fodor Fan (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Serios was also debunked by the magician Milbourne Christopher in his book Mediums, Mystics & the Occult, unfortunately I no longer own that book. But I have added other references to the article. Fodor Fan (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not working on the Serios article any longer. I put some further sources in the further reading section. Fodor Fan (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Ted Owens

Needs sorting out: Ted Owens "Many people who met, investigated, and researched Ted Owens testified that he could predict and control lightning, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and volcanoes, through psychokinesis." Unfortunately I can't find hardly any reliable references for Owens. He was mentioned briefly in the Skeptic's Dictionary as a charlatan but that is about it. Fodor Fan (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nensha

Is it possible change the article name nensha to Thoughtography? Fodor Fan (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

yes...use the "move" tab. BTW, have any sources for Enfield Poltergeist? LuckyLouie (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hardly any reliable sources exist on the topic. Joe Nickell is the only article online[24]. As for books only two reliable books mentions it: Milbourne Christopher. (1970). ESP, Seers & Psychics. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell. pp. 124–31 and Bob Couttie (1988). Forbidden Knowledge: The Paranormal Paradox. Lutterworth Press. Fodor Fan (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again this is false information, The Enfield Poltergeist is a British case, How can american Journalists be credible sources....The only source that can be relied on is a book Entitled This house is haunted by Guy Lyon Playfair.

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Poltergeist may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Robbie Mannheim]] (1949), claimed to be [[demonic possession|demonically possessed] after using a [[Ouija board]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Why did you change my revisions? why have you added stuff about the Warrens? They had nothing to do with the case?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.111.196 (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Enfield Poltergeist

It seems that a completely False reporting of the Enfield poltergeist is now being reported and you are one of the proliferators??

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgejoker (talk • contribs) 08:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you are thinking

Hello, LuckyLouie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Vibroacoustic Therapy is not a Fringe Theory

• "Contemporary Vibroacoustic Therapy: Perspectives on Clinical Practice, Research, and Training Marko Pukanen and Esa Ala-Ruona. Music and Medicine 2012 4:128,originally published online 17 May 2012"

Abstract Vibroacoustic therapy (VAT) traditionally considered to be a physical and receptive type of music therapy intervention, uses pulsed, sinusoidal, low-frequency sound on a specially designed bed or chair. Today VAT is viewed as a multimodal approach, whereby the therapist works with the client’s physiological and psychological experiences, incorporating a mind–body approach. This article provides current knowledge in clinical practice emphasizing the systematic and documented implementations of VAT. This includes presentation and explication of the key elements of VAT, assessments, treatment plans and procedures, documentation, and evaluation of the treatment with recommendations for follow-up care in health and rehabilitation. Recent research is presented, and directions for future research are considered. Applicable views on clinical training and required competencies are outlined.

• Bergström-Isacsson, M. (2001). Musik och Rett syndrome - en musikterapeutisk tolkning. Unpublished Bachelor, Royal College of Music, Stockholm.

• Bergström-Isacsson, M. (2005). Musik och Vibroakustik vid Rett syndrom, en undersökning av autonoma responser. Royal College of Music, Stockholm.

• Bergström-Isacsson, M., Julu, P. O. O., & Witt Engerström, I. (2007). Autonomic responses to Music and Vibroacoustic Therapy in Rett Syndrome. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 16(1), 42-59.

• Bergström-Isacsson, Märith (2011): Music and Vibroacoustic Stimulation in People with Rett Syndrome- A Neurophysiological Study. Doctoral Thesis. Aalborg University, Denmark and Rett Center, Sweden.

Here are relevant literature examples from my own library

• Music Vibration Edited by Tony Wigram and Cheryl Dileo in 1997. Jeffrey books, 538 Covered Bridge Rd, Cherry Hill, NJ, 08034.

• Stress- kui sümmetriline seisund. By Aili Paju and Riina Raudsik (in Estonian) ISBN 978-9985-64-358-7 Maalche Raamat.

• Cheryl Dileo (ed) Music Therapy. International perspectives-Jeffrey Books, 5451 Downs Run, Pipersville, Pennsylvania 18947 (1993)

• Angst, Schmertz, Musik in der Anästhesie. Herausg. R. Droun und R. Spintge. Editioner "Roche" ISBN 3-88878-009-X 1983

• Music Medicine, ed.: Ralph Spintge and Roland Droh. MMB Music, Inc. ISBN 0-918812-72-0 1992

• Music in der Medizin , ed. R. Spintge , R. Droh. Springer.Verlag ISBN 3-540-17265-3, ISBN 0-387-17265-3. 1983 and 1985

• Schmertz und Sport. Ed: r. Spintge, R. Droh. Springer-Verlag ISBN 0-387-18862-4. 1988

• MusicMedicine, Volume 2, Rosalie Rebollo Pratt EdD., Ralph Spintge M.D. (eds) MMB Music. Inc. ISBN 0-918812-89-5 199

• Olav Skille: Il suona a bassa frequenza nella terapia musicale (a cura di Silvio Luigi Feliciani & Chiara Magni)

• ISBN 978-88-548-3603-7 Aracne Editrice 2010.

• And- of course,- there is Tony Wigram's PhD thesis on Vibroacoustic therapy. You find it on Internet.

• Märith Bergström-Isacsson at Rett cender also has got her PhD on VAT

FYI: FDA does not approve pseudoscientific claims...

-- Cyrinus (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Answer: VAT is a kind of sound therapy - not a music therapy. Some Music Therapists use VAT. VAT is VAS (Vibroacoustic Stimulation). VAS is already accepted by wiki (not a fringe theory). If you delete VAT then delete VAS too. One and the same - but VAT is not Music Therapy (musical notes, scales and beats that feels through ears vs pure sound frequencies feels through the body - in wiki example Fetal Vibroacoustic Stimulation). Hope that helps... -- Cyrinus (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

vat

• instead of wondering and assuming - focus on the topic... What I do is none of your business... I am a spot forex trader, information security professional and also a vibroacoustic research therapist... All vibroacoustic therapists know that Olav Skille from norway invented this... Link you provided is not working. Who identified as inventor? --Cyrinus (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• I see the text now... it says Olav Skille... should be the inventor? I can see only IP... Cyrinus (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not quackery - everything you understand is not quackery. take an effort to read the references posted on my talk page.

• MEDRS compliant

• Low Frequency Sound Stimualtion/Therapy

• LFSS

• Norlander T, Sandholm C, Anfelt O. The physioacoustic method and the creative process.1998.PubMed

• King LK, Almeida QJ, Ahonen H. Short-term effects of vibration therapy on motor impairments in Parkinson's disease. 2009. PubMed

• van Os AJ, Aziz L, Schalkwijk D, Schols JM, de Bie RA. Effectiveness of Physio Acoustic Sound (PAS) therapy in demented nursing home residents with nocturnal restlessness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. 2012. PubMed Cyrinus (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

James A. Conrad

I recommend you hold back on rhetorical exuberance. It's fine to describe an idea as eccentric, wrong, refuted and so on, but describing the advocate as a "crank" may result in emails to the Foundation. You can email me to discuss privately if you like. Cheers, Guy (Help!) 16:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. I've removed the word from the Talk page comment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

LuckyLouie Mmmmmmmm... Nah... NOT interested at Tilting at windmills... Thanks... but have fun cleaning out or makeing the world look clean, precise, normal, correct, accurate, apple pie, white, even white bread etc... no place for Eccentricity, Creativity, Gay, Alien (law), Decadence, Abstraction etc in the world... all that WP:FRINGE stuff! Not here to convert you LuckyLouie, better things to do like 'poke my eyes out with a stick'. Good luck with all the WP:REDFLAG WP:FRINGE what ever you fear LuckyLouie and the blitz gang it wont go away, your surrounded by it. Best Regards Vufors (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Another interesting day in the world of WP:FRINGE editing :) Second Quantization (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Riddle House

Hi Lucky Louie, I noticed that you objected to some on the content I added to the article Riddle House, on the grounds that Ghost Adventures isn't a reliable source. Well, I actually cited the Travel Channel, which should be considered reliable. A number of other articles use the Travel Channel as a source, see here. If you are still uncomfortable with me citing the Travel Channel, I may be able to find alternative sources. By the way, do you have any tips of improving the article further? I live in West Palm Beach and have visited the Riddle House at least once a year, so I'd like to get this article to at least GA. Regards, --12george1 (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi 12george1. The long and short of it is that Wikipedia's WP:FRINGE policies don't allow us to give undue weight to the pseudoscientific claims of ghost hunting practitioners, and while The Travel Channel is often used to cite mundane facts (a beach resort is now open for business, etc), it isn't considered a reliable source of fact that spirits of the dead inhabit a location. Discussion of legends and folklore about hauntings cited to historical societies, folklorists and academics are fine to include in an article, but care should be used to present these in an encyclopedic tone and avoid making Wikipedia an undiscerning repeater of "ghost stories". - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I understand now. Being haunted is one of the Riddle House' claim to fame, otherwise it would have no article like the other buildings at Yesteryear Village. So I guess I will keep the content but find alternative sources for the information.--12george1 (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll see if I can help you with it as time permits. Usually if a place is notable there'll be some news coverage of it. I tried google archive news search [25] but didn't seem to find anything, but that could depend on search terms. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Google News has been messed up lately. The search does not work anymore if you select the dates. Manually paging through usually doesn't work either. It has been a pain to us at the project I am most active in, WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Anyway, I found substitutes for the Travel Channel source. But yeah, if you plan on trying to find stuff with Google News, good luck.--12george1 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if the only thing Riddle House is notable for is rumored hauntings and supernatural claims, then it falls under WP:FRINGE. I'm afraid that credulous books about ghost hunting and ghosts aren't reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ganzfeld experiment

Is there any chance you can offer your opinion on the ganzfeld article talk page. User is claiming Terence Hines and other skeptical sources are wrong and is threatening to remove them. Goblin Face (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Battle of Los Angeles

I am new to Wiki editing so please bear with me. This is my first time using a talk page.

I attempted to edit the UFOlogy section of this entry and found a fabricated statement and two tangentally related citations, which I removed. Your explanations for undoing my changes were rather cryptic. Please explain so we can clear this up.

````Ufotheater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufotheater (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Afd revisited

I added sources and information to this. I think they show notability due to the Russian response to this nonsense. I would be much obliged if you could revisit. I hope that was brevity! Panyd<sup>The muffin is not subtle</sup> 20:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Good work. I wonder if there's a place for discussion of the incident in the context of Soviet shift in attitude, significance for detente, etc. per NYT stories. That would certainly strengthen the case for keeping it. :NB: the brevity thing was a little humorous self deprecation (e.g. my user page bio is ridiculously brief) but since no one gets it, maybe I ought to take it down ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Erlendur Haraldsson

I might need help with this article. About 60% of it needs to be deleted because it is sourced to his own paranormal papers. Let me know what you think. Goblin Face (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned it at WP:FTN. Let's see if there is agreement to cull the self-sourced stuff or maybe even a merge with the main reincarnation research article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I submitted the article for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erlendur Haraldsson Goblin Face (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on the Panati article, this one also needs to be improved Andrija Puharich, I will search for sources. It will be the one of last biography articles I work on. Had enough of editing these. It gets tiresome. Goblin Face (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A few news hits here. [26] - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Any chance you can watch over the telepathy article? IP gone mad, but I can't keep reverting him. Goblin Face (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's On My Watchlist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, have you heard of this guy Jean-Émile Charon ? Can't find any reliable sources in English for him. Goblin Face (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a tough one. He shows up in Google Scholar, and undoubtedly there are some academic sources that refer to his writings as an example of new age fringe theory, but hard to identify since they're in French. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, LuckyLouie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Martin Gardner

Do you have any opinion on the Colin Wilson quote that was recently added to the Gardner article. It seems dubious and is out of place. I think it should be removed, but rather get consensus first. Goblin Face (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

UFO sightings in outer space

Hi,

I noticed that you suggested the opening paragraph failed WP:SYNTH, can you please point out some examples, because I was very thorough to make sure everything was properly cited was no interpretations. In fact I wrote it was a skeptic tone. Please let me know some issues you see. Valoem <sup>talk contrib</sup> 02:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey,

I think you might have misinterpreted. I was talking about the Dieselpunk AfDs, I have no problems with you and appreciate the work you've done on the article. There was another editor who I did have issues with in the AfD, trust me it is not you :) Valoem <sup>talk contrib</sup> 15:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Remember the I was concern with during the AfD? It is the TRPoD, I am uncomfortable with his edits on the article. During the AfD he removed cited sources for reasons I am not speculating on. Now after the AfD, he unwified the format, once again I will assumed good faith, but I intend to revert. I would be more comfortable if you edited the article. It is important that we write the article per sources. Proponents view have been swept under the rug which is undue. I think it is good to have an unbiased skeptic editing, I was hoping you agree with me. Valoem <sup>talk contrib</sup> 19:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I am biased - against undue weight being given fringe sources or sources with questionable context. For example I do agree with this revision per WP:REDFLAG. We do want to explain the fringe UFO beliefs, but not by giving weight to an isolated claim in the IB Times that's not been covered by other WP:RS. Anyhow, I'll give the sources in the Further Reading section a look when I have a chance. I think Oberg references several UFOlogy claims in his papers, and can be a good objective and independent source for what UFOlogists say. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand I would like to revert to this as that version survived AfD. It is cleaner, I will ping a few editors for their opinion, I feel he is editing with the intent to have the article deleted in the future given his statements during the AfD. Valoem <sup>talk contrib</sup> 21:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No time to get into this at the moment, but some free advice: avoid arguing that an editor is biased or an editor is a skeptic or an editor is whatever on article Talk pages or AfD's because that's the quickest route to WP:AN/I and running afoul of WP:NPA. Best to stick to discussion about improving the article. If you feel the article is better with year-by-year section headings for example, explain in detail why you think this is a good thing for the article. People may or may not agree with you, but you have to do your best to get along with them. - LuckyLouie (talk)

Talk:Ayurveda in America

Saw you comments after discovering an editor removing the lead as the sentences weren't simple enough. Do you want to start a merge discussion? Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

HAARP

I think that the new editor is talking about you on his talk page (and maybe me). I've reverted again. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Poltergeist

Can you look at the recent edits on this by Thundergodz some of it looks ok but some of it looks seriously fringe, he's inserting these same sources on many other articles as well. Not sure what to do about this. Goblin Face (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you drop a note on the talk page describing what sources are unsuitable for what material? Haven't been following. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

He is re-adding the Michael Persinger papers to the science section on the poltergeist article. I will start a section about it on the talk page. Goblin Face (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Boss Reality

Have you seen the article he created, Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill? A conspiracy video made up of copyvio from news broadcasts, etc. Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Law of One (Ra material)

Please justify your changes on the article talk page. They are very extensive, amounting to gutting. Rather than revert you, I ask you to discuss. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

An article with a massive amount of material cited to primary sources and nonindependent credulous sources may appear to some as "gutted" when it is rightly removed. Please don't take it personally. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There are two related factors. One is that it's at deletion review. I don't feel it would be proper for me to radically rewrite it to strengthen its sourcing while that is happening, because it amounts to reconsideration of its notability; meanwhile two or three of you are cutting swathes out of it, potentially weakening the notability argument. The other is that you assume the removals are right; I believe they are too extensive (by both of you as well as by the AfD and DR nominator) to be undisputable, and the reasoning put forward at the article's talk page indicates that is indeed the case. At the very least, there should be discussion on the article talk page. These are not indisputable changes and they are in effect gutting an article that is under active discussion. ... That's the non-personal part of it. :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

During the discussion at DRV, several people have pointed out to me that DRV isn't AfD Part 2, and that arguing about the article's present state: e.g. sourcing, writing style, etc. is not appropriate, and instead we should be analyzing the AfD close. So if the closing admin's decision making process is the only thing germane to the DRV (and the article itself isn't relevant to the discussion) then there's nothing to stop us from trying to improve the article. Makes sense, no? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, we disagree over what it needs by way of improvement. The three of you are, in effect, gutting it - based on a standard of reliable sources that I do not believe is required by policy, or appropriate. As I have briefly stated on the article talk page, and hence my asking you to participate there. However, the comunity may still decide to just delete what's left. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry we disagree since you've been extremely helpful with assistance on other (albeit less contentious) articles I've been involved with. I think the DRV will end in a keep, given that DRV's scope is limited to determining if the closing admin correctly evaluated comments posted at at the AfD (roughly analogous the legal system, where a judge's decision is based only on the material that's been presented in court). Anyway, the stripped down article is a good basis to start over, and I'm sure a little digging will unearth more objective sources to help flesh it out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Rima

Not sure about that. Its creator wasn't bothering to look in the right places. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Award

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Don't know if you believe in these kinds of recognitions or not (I typically find them to be fatuous), but just wanted to let you know that your help with UFO and other fringe articles has been greatly appreciated by me. jps (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@jps. Sorry for the much delayed response. I appreciate your appreciation. In the case of UFO articles, there are still many that are in ridiculously bad shape. Most of them are leftovers from the bad old days of Wikipedia when the only volunteers interested in putting in the time to create UFO articles were UFO buffs drawing from sources within the UFO buff universe. Unsurprisingly, the resulting articles tended to enthusiastically promote the UFO buff POV. It will take a while to go through them, but I'm in no hurry. As someone wise once said, the long game is your friend. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Random deletions

Dear User, before randomly deleting complete portions of contributions, you should learn to read. Materialization by a subject's will or with the hypothetical use of a third party is not proven. The existing stub mentioned that if it was, it would contradict the mass-energy conservation law. But THIS IS FALSE, as I showed. Thus whether you delete EVERYTHING, including this wrong interpretation of physics that materialization would imply a conservation law violation (which is not the case if energy is brought to the process), or you delete nothing from what I wrote, i.e. merely facts. You fascist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.101.208.168 (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

About your recurring deletion of the "dubious" tag on your citation linked to paranormal materialization

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaphylaxis2014 (talk • [[Special:Contributions/Anaphylaxis2014|contribs]) 09:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Street light interference phenomenon

Look at this article and let me know what you think? Many of the references are unreliable and I think there is too many quotes in there from Evans book. Only done a few minutes research so far all I have found for this was the piece in the skeptical inquirer which needs to be expanded on the article [27] Goblin Face (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Goblin Face: Yes, direct quotes of a primary source making redflag claims are not a good thing for that article. It may be possible to summarize the claims made by Evans and source them to either Skeptical Inquirer and also The Straight Dope - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you look at the talk-page for the Near death experience article, some users have complained about the intro. Is "neuroscience seeks to explain" a good choice of words for the lead? Goblin Face (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Goblin Face: Looks like it its giving equal validity to science and pseudoscience. I'd bring it up at WP:FTN. The article Talk page seems to be attracting some IPs and sleeper socks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The Black Monk of Pontefract

Not a lot of RS on this one. It seems most of what I find is centered on the 2012 movie When the Lights Went Out. Like a tabloid about the movie:

• "Horror film's a real scream: Why Brum star Kate's in fits of giggles during filming". Sunday Mercury. Birmingham. 16 September 2012 – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help) copy available at TheFreeLibrary.com.

This book seems to have a case study. I don't have access but it is in many libraries.

• Gauld, Alan; Cornell, AD (1979). Poltergeists. London, Boston: Routeledge & Paul Kegan. ISBN 9780710001856.

It is in several other books but they pretty much fail RS.

A BBC background page, pretty much a "news of the weird/halloween feature" not significant coverage.

• "Petrified in Pontefract!". Bradford & West Yorkshire: Places. www.bbc.co.uk. BBC. 29 October 2008 [25 October 2006].

The BBC on the movie:

• Youngs, Ian (10 September 2012). "When the Lights Went Out revives 1970s ghost story". Entertainment and Arts. BBC News Online.

A recent credulous frankly poor quality book:

• Adams, Paul; Brazil, Eddie (2013). Extreme Hauntings: Britain's Most Terrifying Ghosts. The History Press. ISBN 9780752489568.

Here's another thoroughly credulous "analysis" of Colin Wilson's "trilogy" which includes his "work" on The Black Monk, which might be better subtitled "A Guide for the Gullible".

• Stanley, Colin (2013). Colin Wilson's 'Occult Trilogy': A Guide for Students. John Hunt Publishing. ISBN 9781846946790.

Another rather credulous account perhaps a little less so (note the book factory of Cawthorne for a hint of reliability):

• Matthews, Rupert; Cawthorne, Nigel. Poltergeists: and Other Hauntings. Arcturus Publishing, 2009. ISBN 9781848587878.

I'll take a look via my library accounts but something tells me there is no reliable much less scholarly source that discusses this. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Precognition

Can you look at the belief section on this article all sourced to journal of parapsychology or psychical papers etc. I have gutted a lot of these sources from the article. The problem is trying to find that content in reliable sources. Goblin Face (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the EVP edit.

Thanks for helping with my EVP page revision today. I think your edit makes the opening statements more balanced and neutral. One thing I would like to suggest though is that defining EVP as just 'voices' excludes certain other sounds which some people interpret as e.g disembodied music or animal noises, or even aircraft engines. If this could be woven into the statements to reflect that I think it would benefit the article. Kind regards. 188.31.15.170 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sure there are all sorts of interpretations and claims of what people think they are hearing and why, but we'd need independent sources to show that those interpretations were getting enough mainstream attention to give them weight in the article lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, understood; thanks for your reply, appreciated. 92.41.113.170 (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi

GWTreePlants (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Xenoglossy

This article needs to be fixed i.e. trimmed down and reliable sources inserted. There is also an IP adding in a lot of dubious material. Goblin Face (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Would be good to find RS. This would do fine, better if we could read text from the missing page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I will attempt to fix the xenoglossy shortly, but take a look at this Psychomanteum. Only fringe claims, I can find no reliable sources. Goblin Face (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Psychomanteum needed a couple of good sources and an introductory context. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas about what to do on the Xenoglossy article? It is harder than I thought, not many sources on the topic. I think too much is being sourced to Stevenson's book. Goblin Face (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think J. Gordon Melton is the closest you've got to a reliable objective source [28]. I'd basically summarize the various religious and paranormalist claims that he mentions in his book. I'd do a short separate section for Stevenson (with pointer link to his bio article) noting that his reincarnation work involved claims of xenoglossy, but his work was criticized for being credulous and was not accepted by the scientific mainstream (source for that is his NYT obit, Terence Hines, etc). - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Also see, Uri Geller... he is now a professional mineral dowser? lol. Goblin Face (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't know much about Uri Geller or about his success as a mineral dowser - whatever you think, he's been paid and I will dig out the Financial Times article from 1986 that reported this.

What you seem to overlook is that the very best skeptical treatment of Uri Geller by the likes of Paul Kurtz and others CANNOT, CANNOT legislate against Company Directors of Oil Companies and Presidents of Countries and Defence Security Agencies taking a serious interest in him. Don't get too surprised because as Julian Assange has shown, the people at the top are mediocre.

Please don't interpret these statements by me as some sort of "endorsement" by me of Uri Geller Dickie birdie (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverts and Edit War

You are the one doing the reverts and edit war. I am providing references. Don't lecture me.Dickie birdie (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. --AlbaDeTamble (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Gustav Geley

See talk-page. It is a banned user. Goblin Face (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you can help me gut some of this article, H. H. Price, a lot of nonsense added on there to unreliable sources a long time it seems. Goblin Face (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit swamped on non-Wiki work at the moment, but I see sections cited to James Houran and other refs that would have to be checked out. Of course you can remove stuff like big featured quotes cited to Price's own writings as undue. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is slightly confusing

Hello LuckyLouie-

I received your message regarding the book I added to the Summerwind Mansion Wiki page. I am obviously new to all of this and trying to take in alllll the guidelines. I wasn't trying to use this to promote myself, I wanted to add that I am writing a book about Summerwind that is coming out the summer of 2015.

Advice- should I just wait to add that to Wiki until AFTER the book has been released?

Thank you, PhantomGirl1979 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhantomGirl1979 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Re Peter Khoury incident

Thank for asking. No, the editor who made the change to Keep did not ask me or discuss it. Paul B (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I did want to keep it, but I could see no legitimate policy reason to do so, hence my original "reluctant delete". I should have changed it back, but some part of my mind chose not to do so. If you are thinking of closing the AFD very shortly, I will change it back. Paul B (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Political Conspiracies

A day or two ago, you wrote in a message to me, 'A list article of events characterized as "harmful or illegal acts" would need multiple, reliable sources for each entry.' Would you still hold that objection if each entry liked to a dedicated Wiki page that contained such references? Thanks for response. Slade Farney (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Villa Dunardi

Excuse LuckyLouie but i think that you wrong about Villa Dunardi. There are a lot of articles in internet (google) and in TV SHOW TARGET (i've posted link) they speak about this home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domicutrona (talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ufology

Hey. I see you around the fortean articles all the time, and you seem to have a good hard nose about it. The article linked above is awful. Truly, truly, awful. I'm trying to give it a complete overhaul but just doing the initial work is throwing up about a million unexpected pitfalls. I've tried to put down a list of proper headings that an article with a good overview of the subject would have - but then I start writing on just the US military responses to it, and it's immense. There's too much to condense into a section, but I can't see anything else that properly encapsulates the entire subject. There are articles on the sightings, and reports, and projects, but nothing on 'US Military Response to UFO phenomena'.

Given that that is just a couple of sources and only 2 hours worth of writing - as someone who I trust to be good at this - would you make separate articles and completely condense the sections? Or would you allow the sections to be long? I mean, that's just the US. Brazil has its own long and storied history, not to mention the UK. Panyd<sup>The muffin is not subtle</sup> 16:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Panyd. It seems like a big job, but in my opinion, bold cuts are needed. The ufology article unnecessarily repeats much of the material in ufo. Also, ufology is practiced by ufologists - i.e. these people. Legislators, government employees and mainstream scientists convening panels and writing reports in response to public or defense concerns aren't "ufologists" and their activity is not "ufology". So the list of government panels and studies should be removed from the article. Likewise, if an objective reliable source specifically mentions certain ufo reports as being especially relevant to ufology or ufologists, we might include them, but a blind list of cases said to be "notable" isn't appropriate. How's that for hard nosed? ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hate the cases. Hate that it's all US-based. Hate that it's a one-track thing. I do think that studying UFO's is ufology, with ufologists being a neologism that someone pulled up to make themselves sound more scientific than they are. Although now you've said that I've just looked at the UFO article and that's also awful and repetitive and also says Ufology is a neologism describing the collective efforts of those who study UFO reports and associated evidence. And now half the stuff I picked for Ufology fits in UFO.

Jesus Christ I might die.

Sigh. Well thank you for nudging me around there. Although, do you think there should be separate articles for 'list of military history of X with regards to UFOs' or something similar? Obviously culturally notable, especially in the USA and USSR...but could I just cram that into somewhere. This shouldn't be this messy! Do you guys at Fringe Noticeboard do task forces? WikiProject Paranormal is dead so it tends to be me vs. crazies vs. Fringe Noticeboard on these subjects and this just shouldn't be like this. It's not encyclopedic. Panyd<sup>The muffin is not subtle</sup> 17:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

List of investigations of UFOs by governments should be the main article for studies of UFOs that are set apart from the vast bulk of UFO authors and amateur organizations. Sorry, there's no task force I'm aware of, however posting articles in need of help at FTN sometimes draws volunteers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool. I appreciate it. Wish me luck... Panyd<sup>The muffin is not subtle</sup> 18:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Goats, etc

I don't know if you noticed, but the IP has an account - not a secret, evidently he/she normally edits anonymously. But of course if the IP changes, any record of discussions, etc on the talk page aren't easily linked to the account. Thanks for working on the article. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Forgot I mentioned it on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dougweller. I'm guessing it's a shared computer, because the unencyclopedic writing (links to YouTube videos as sources, in-text comments and editorial asides, etc.) is not consistent with someone who has been an active editor since 2006. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I take your point, but see [29] - and his talk page where he admits it. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dougweller. Whatever the reason for the behavior, it's odd. Additionally, the freewheeling editorial comments and assertions in the Featured individuals section of the article are mostly uncontroversial, but a few may pose WP:BLP problems. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Review by, and input from experienced editors is kindly requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Should headings maintain neutrality?. Sundayclose (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping out with all of my various inquiries. Cheers! - Location (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Branton Files

As I have set up [30] - could you transfer any useful references over from the previous version of the WP page; and if you wish to make use of the wiki for describing 'mysterious documents' feel free. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

All previous versions of the page are available here, just click on "history" Branton Files (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Electronic harassment

Just to let you know, I didn't intend to overwrite your edit -- I'm not sure how it happened. But I think the result is still okay. If not, please feel free to revert. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem! - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Terminal lucidity

This seems to me to be a minor parapsychology position propped by paranormal proponents such as Greyson and Haraldsson. Does it really need an entire article? Should it be deleted? A little angry (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hard to say. Any non-parapsychology sources that use the term? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Basically a handful of paranormal books mention it and two papers. One skeptic book written by a medical researcher dismisses it. I will probably try and fix the article up shortly. Though I can't see it being much more than a stub. A little angry (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Time slip

Wasn't this article deleted? Someone has recreated it? A little angry (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that it should be merged into time travel in fiction. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a Talk page discussion at the article; apparently it was recreated after a consensus at Deletion Review. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Mrenh Gongveal

This article is new and reads like a promotional advert? Also see Mrenh Gongveal: Chasing the Elves of the Khmer. They are a right mess. A little angry (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

These are up for discussion in WP:FTN. On second thought, this falls under mythology and not fringe theory. - Location (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Black Knight

Okay, so I saw you undid two edits by an IP user, yet in two follow-up edits you essentially Put back in everything you took out. With the exact same edit summary "Please discuss removal of sourced material on Talk page, thanks.". Can you please explain why? I'm just curious. Crash Underride 00:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I accidentally chose this edit by the IP to undo, when I meant to choose their previous edit. So I ended up doing two edits to restore all the material they deleted. Sorry for pasting the same edit summary in there twice. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I still think the "Stories and myths" section title is a bit judgmental and biased. lol. Crash Underride 02:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, our mainstream scientific sources actually come out and say it's a bunch of stories and myths, so they are the ones being judgmental and biased against the idea that it's a 13,000 year old alien satellite, but what have you got in mind for a section title? - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't have an idea. Something that was more WP:NPOV. Something like "Theories", etc. Crash Underride 04:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Actually, "History" is really more in keeping with WP:MOS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right. Crash Underride 20:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your most recent edit to this article, good work. The editor whom you reverted has been warned on their talk page. Crash Underride 22:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep, the myth seems to be alive and well on the internets [31]. The funniest is a Pepsi video [32] hyping the black knight rumor - so no doubt there will be continued attempts to subvert the article : ( - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey now, I happen to believe the Black Knight isn't a man made object at all. :P Crash Underride 23:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually the release of the Pepsi video that feeds the conspiracy theory [33] coincides with the quadrupling of the article's page views 7 days ago. That explains a lot. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Poltergeist

I see you have removed the link I restored earlier today to the poltergeist article. May I respectfully point out that your justification for this—that the paper linked to is "misleading pseudoscientific bunk"—is as bigoted as it is ignorant? Kindly read a posting I left here for somebody else who removed the link.

I am going to restore it and would be grateful if you would let it stand.

Alderbourne (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Explanation

Hi,

Since my thank for this edit may seem passive aggressive when compared to my comment at Talk:List of cryptids, I just wanted to leave a message to clarify that it was actually accidental (I don't know of a way to undo). Sorry about that. — Rhododendrites <sup>talk</sup> \\ 04:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply to recent edit on Linda Moulton Howe page

Hi LuckyLouie,
Sorry, is it wrong to remove an element of a wikipedia biography page that the person in question does not want to appear?
-- GravitationalWavesAreReal (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I assume you mean that Howe does not want to be identified as a ufologist and conspiracy theorist. We go by what reliable independent sources say. Please read the encyclopedia's policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Tyler Henry

Why is it OK to allow a criticism section on Wiki? That info is all opinion and not fact. I don't understand your issue with my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizza2 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Gizza2: The "opinions" you refer to concerning Tyler Henry are not those of Wikipedia editors, but of notable commentators, and they are quoted in reliable sources cited in the article. We do not need to show that the criticism is well-founded, only that the criticisms were made, and our sources do that quite adequately. Our articles here reflect what reliable sources say about the subject, whether praise or criticism. Stop removing the content or be blocked for edit warring. General Ization <sup>Talk</sup> 23:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Project MKUltra

I removed the rather large wall of text you posted to the article Talk page per Talk page guidelines since it was pure WP:SOAPBOX rather than a discussion of how to improve the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

ok. thanks for listening. ) Moscowamerican (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Watseka Wonder

The Hoffman accusation of "incompetency" in his assessment of the Watseka witnesses is not in any way supported by him. It is exactly the kind of throwaway comment that bears scrutiny, especially as it contradicts Richard Hodgson's cross-examination of those witnesses. William James was impressed enough with Hodgson's cross-examination to cite it in his classic text, The Principles of Psychology.74.108.121.70 (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you point out in our article text where it mentions "incompetency"? Again, since you are new to Wikipedia you may not be familiar with our editorial policies. As mentioned above, we do not need to show that the criticism is well-founded, only that the criticisms were made. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleting AfD notice

I reverted you here. That was out of line; I hope it was just a mistake. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh crap, sorry. Didn't mean to delete the AfD tag. I was trying to partially undo the overenthusiastic TNT done by a well-meaning but inexperienced editor. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:DR/N

Hi, there is a case at WP:DR/N Regarding a case that you may have been involved in. I did not file this case, but, as the filer failed to notify you, I am notifying you. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, LuckyLouie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Cryptozoologists and Loch Ness Monster

Hey there. You might be interested in the repeated edit warring to get cryptid into the first line of Loch ness monster, WP:UNDUE be damned. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sea Lions. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

This is probably best handled at WP:ARE per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189#Beautifulpeoplelikeyou if the IP hopping problem user defaults to a registered account. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Electronic Harassment NPOV". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 September 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 06:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban for Jed Stuart

I really think it's time to request a topic ban for Jed Stuart. Do you agree? If so, a simple "yes" will be enough. If I can find a couple of good editors who agree, I'll start an ANI thread requesting it and post a link back here. If you don't agree, please let me know why. Thanks, MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed Topic ban of user:Jed Stuart from editing articles related to conspiracy theories. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Electronic Harassment NPOV, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

List of cryptids

Given your involvement in prior discussions, you may be interested in what's going on over at list of cryptids. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, LuckyLouie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Lighter-than-air aircraft

For the record, a balloon is most definitely an aircraft, as the article clearly explains. However, it's true that object doesn't sound bad there, also to avoid repetition in the following paragraph. --Deeday-UK (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. Revert it back to "aircraft" if you feel it will benefit the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hephaestus Books

Hello Louie, you used a book by Hephaestus to help source Morgawr (folklore) when you salvaged it in January. Unfortunately, those "books" are copied from Wikipedia. I've removed the source but you had other references in place, so no harm done. See WP:PUS for more about similar books and other unreliable sources. Fences&Windows 20:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I just looked back at the source and found the description "this content has been curated from Wikipedia articles and images under Creative Commons licensing". Guess I was in too big a rush that day. Apologies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request to overturn administrator's decision". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Time travel claims and urban legends

Saw your revert on the Billy Meier section. I have no strong feelings with that revert, but without the content you reverted it no longer relevant to the page itself and the whole section should be removed. Also on a policy aspect, not sure if PROFRINGE applies in that case for removal, since it's only used to reference his claim rather than stating the claim is valid. Something to think about at the very least. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. AFAIK, WP:FRIND sources are always preferable to pro-fringe sources for referencing fringe claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, as long as there was a WP:FRIND source for the claim as you managed to find. Otherwise I'd have no issue with it as WP:SELFSOURCE about the fact he wrote it. The claim he wrote it certainly isn't exceptional or fringe even if the content of the writing is. Thanks anyway for the change. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your work on Miracle of the Sun, the article really needed it!

By the way, some of us are trying to slowly revive the old WP:SKEPTIC project. If you're working on anything that is related to skepticism or pseudoscience, don't hesitate to put it on the to-do list and/or to mention it on the project's talk page. It would help the project get some activity back. See you around! KarlPoppery (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised I found time to revamp the article, although doing it in 3 or 4 chunks helped somewhat. Don't usually have time for Wikiprojects, but I'll keep an eye on how your project is doing. WP:FTN is more or less the default notice board for this sort of thing. Cheerio - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Miracle of the Sun

Kindly see talk page of this article. Thanks! Marax (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orb (paranormal)

I note that you nominated this article for deletion, and you have since gone ahead and deleted it. However the outcome of that AfD was to merge it, not delete it. Please respect that decision. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Pukwudjie

Thanks. Adding more sources to talk page later. I almost took this to AfD. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

OR

LuckyLouie, I don't understand your message. WHY would Wikipedia not want original research cited? D Addie — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonWDouglas (talk • contribs)

• In short, because that is not what an encyclopedia does. See your talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, LuckyLouie. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, LuckyLouie. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 01:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Need Your Advice

I appreciated your acknowledgement of my addition (Halloween Martin) to the history of radio disc jockeys. I've got lots more I could add. Now, I need to ask a favor. A few years ago, someone (and no, it was NOT me, contrary to some snide comments on my talk page)created a Wikipedia page about me. It's now badly out of date, but on the couple of times I tried to update it, I got taken to task & told not to do it. Okay fine, I understand conflict of interest. But how do I get someone to help update my Wikipedia page? More about me is easily found in newspapers, magazines, and at my website (www.donnahalper.com). I'd appreciate any suggestions about how to get the page to reflect the past 6 years of my life, professionally-speaking. Much love to you. DonnaHalper (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Expanding Folklore Coverage, Eliminating WP:UNDUE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE

Hello! I've been expanding some of our coverage on, for example, folklore genres. I've also been reigning in some of the stray cryptozoology-dominated pieces still out there. You may be interested in taking a look at the progress. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a never ending task. See here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your extensive work at WP:FTN and helping to keep the tin foil in check. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Fringe

I think we have a difference of agreement when it comes to fringe. Fringe topics are notable, but should be covered in a way that informs the public of their true nature. I really don't have any issues with our past interactions (except when you revert time slip which I'll chalk up to an honesty mistake), however fringe topics are notable and are of general interest to the public given that they are informed in the proper way. So in this regard we are on the same side. I strongly disagree that because a source claims the nonsensical subject it real nullifies it as an "independent" source, that is not the definition of an independent source. Goat people seems to have tremendous historical significance in the realm of mythology. There are many sources which cover this and the article need expansion not deletion. This article in no way hints Goat people are real I find it hard to believe anyone could interpret it as such.

I recently wrote Ammons haunting case because the film Demon House claims it was a real haunting and notable sources allege the same garbage ... ridiculous indeed. I've added sources which show the subject is notable, but also the skeptical analysis which clearly show this as a scam of sorts as are all "haunting" cases, but again this does not mean such things are not notable and I appreciate your edits to the page. I don't think we disagree in this regard. Valoem <sup>talk contrib</sup> 18:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have written and expanded many articles on notable fringe topics myself. Peace. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought that perhaps this is something you might be interested in, as a scientific mind. This is someone I follow and respect. Valoem <sup>talk contrib</sup> 05:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific Sources at Tatzelwurm

You may be interested in what’s going on over at Tatzelwurm, especially the article’s talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Request for assistance

As you kindly volunteered to help with the Biddle article, may I ask a different favor so that I do not go through the same AfD hell twice in a row? My next project MAY be creating an article on Bob Nygaard. I just heard him interviewed on a podcast, was fascinated, and decided to give it a go. I have created a sandbox with all the possible sources I could find, and before I do the real work of constructing an article out of them, and possibly waste a ton of time AGAIN, I want verification that he is notable. Can you take a look and offer an opinion? It is at: User:Rp2006/sandbox/Bob Nygaard

Help

Hey you asked me to add those external Links to the External Links Section & go by the guidelines of Wiki which you linked and I read everything about Linking & External Links and how everything needs to be formatted. I followed all instructions and then another Admin who is being dishonest has lied and removed the external Links having some type of personal effect to what it was related to I can only assume considering the links were related to Electronic Harassment & Gangstalking which can clearly be reviewed and inv3estigated if I can get some other Admins involved who are honest. I would still like to add the external links they are relevant you can check them and they should be there on that page in Wiki this is important information that is not included or available and ads to the learning experience of Electronic Harassment and Ganstalking adding actual information on what a Targeted Individual is when it comes to Electronic Harassment, All the info is on that website I tried to link externally. I do research on the topic and felt it was worthy of adding. Please help me remove these false reports against me by this dishonest lying false accusation making Wiki Admin. I want to appeal and hold this person responsible for being dishonest and I have all the proof to back it up and to prove the external link I added was relevant and in need of supply considering its crucial information that is not provided by the thread or page. Credible information. Here is the URL -https://maininfo.wixsite.com/gangstalking — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResilientWiki (talk • contribs) 19:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Fringe Theories Notice Board

Hello! You might be interested in this discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Cryptozoology Cleanup Proposal Draft

You may be interested in a piece I'm composing that I intend to use to address the widespread problems involving cryptozoology and poor folklore coverage that Wikipedia continues to face. Of course, you are welcome to contribute or make suggestions. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! deisenbe (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hollywood Medium history

Hi. After a merge and deletion of the original article (Hollywood Medium with Tyler Henry), is there any way to see the edit history of that now deleted article? RobP (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure. Try WP:HD. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

List of reportedly haunted locations

Good day LuckyLouie! It's been a year or more since we've interacted in a talk page regarding List of reportedly haunted locations in Bangladesh. I've been not active in these paranormal articles recently, except in modifying some pics. But not a long time ago, I'd noticed the fringe content regarding Bengali haunted locations were reinstated in article List of reportedly haunted locations (possibly by IP user or new user). I need your opinion if this violates WP's Fringe Theory Policy. I have no time recently due to my highly busy schedules. Thanks! :-) JWilz12345 (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, blogspot postings and personal web pages are not considered reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen. Warning is in regard to this edit [34]. The user is a newbie. Wikipedia already has an editor retention problem, please don't add to it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

See my reply on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk archive headers

Hello, I've been reviewing your edits to talk page archives (looooong story why), and I notice that you've been omitting an archive header from archives you manually create as recently as last May. Pleas remember to add {{talkarchive}}, {{aan}}, or a similar template to any talk page archives you create in the future. Thanks. Graham87 12:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for help

Hello, I’m a relatively new editor and I’ve been writing a page from scratch. I have had some suggestions that it may not meet notability standards. They’ve suggested that you’ve been helpful in the past and that i contact you for your thoughts. I see you’re busy, but if you do have some spare time would you care to look over my creation and tell me what you think? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:330highflyer/sandbox2 TIA 330highflyer (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Responded here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, thanks so much for taking the time to read my page, and give me such helpful and detailed feedback. It is my first attempt at a page from scratch so I’m very happy to hear of your approval, but I’ll still work a little harder to make sure it gets over the notability line. Cheers 330highflyer (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

And thanks again for your generous time and efforts in editing my page. It looks great so I’ve published. 330highflyer (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Notice of Arbitration Committee Clarification Request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, --Guy Macon (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

ARCA archived

A clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Clarification request: Paranormal (October 2018). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, LuckyLouie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Zaid

On EH, this was an edit conflict not an intentional revert; let me know if you think it should be removed still and I can self-rv. VQuakr (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

You put it into proper context so it looks OK now, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I moved your comment at Talk:Conspiracy theory

to what appeared to me to be a more appropriate spot. You may, of course, revert if you think it was a bad idea. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You did me a favor. Formatting on my phone’s tiny screen is often difficult. Thanks -LuckyLouie (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Autonova (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Kenny Biddle resurrection

Hi... If you recall I wrote an article on ex-paranormal investigator and now skeptical activist Kenny Biddle. It was deleted after a month-long argument on notability grounds. The NYT just published a story about a psychic sting operation Kenny participated in, and Kenny got more than a mention. It goes into his past and present activities. If I republish the Biddle article with this new info, would you support it? The article (no NYT info yet) is here. And here is the NYT article. RobP (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

So the, IMHO, train wreck which went down the first time for this article's AfD, is repeating itself. The first time the deletion discussion was peppered with unsubstantiated insinuations about sock-puppet voting keep. The deletion grounds were insufficient notability, but the closer was biased when the well was poisoned by the sock-puppet claims. Delete votes were given disproportionately more weight.

In this case, one editor has attacked what I believe is the best source for attempting a resurrection of the article - The NYT report - on several fallacious fronts. First that it was FRINGE. He could not have read the article, nor the summary of the sting now in the Biddle article. Then when I pointed out they had that 180 degrees off and was an attack on fringe beliefs (mediumship), they said "Anti-FRINGE is an interesting twist on FRINGE. It still needs FRINGE type care." Huh? Are we making up new categories now to prevent this NYT article from being considered a RS? Next came dismissing the article because "I call the reporter, Jack Hitt, and his article, not independent of Kenny Biddle because Hitt and Biddle obviously worked together to create this article." This statement was made with no evidence at all. And as with the AfD, every time I point out a blatant inaccuracy, no one comments on that, they just push on. Now we are at the point where I have been told to provide the best NEW three sources. Originally, at the very top, it was just best three sources. That is called moving the goalposts. There are only three new sources, and the best one, the NYT article, has had its worth unfairly besmeared. I am sure they will say the other two new ones - the CFI podcast and Radford's 2018 book - are not independent. So I am thinking this is sunk. RobP (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The DRV process seems a bit chaotic. I am not familiar with how WP:FRINGE might apply to the draft. You might ask at WP:FTN (keep it brief and neutral). - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Re the NYT: All you can do is calmly question the odd accusation of inappropriate collusion between journalist Hitt and subject Biddle and ask for evidence. Which you've done.

Re the draft: If I was any kind of mentor, I would have warned you about WP:REFBOMBing. Definitely not a good thing to do, especially while notability is being evaluated. Also I would avoid "panic editing". Don't suddenly try to make a podcast intro sound like an award, or say he was instrumental to a sting, or portray his opinion mentioned in a book as a huge big deal. This kind of sudden inflation is seen as WP:PUFFERY, and it makes a bad impression on reviewers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to tone the new stuff down, and also left a question at at Fringe as suggested. Feel free to chime in at the debate too. RobP (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep, some real eccentric interpretations of policy show up at DRV, but most recognize them for what they are. BTW, you don't want my ¡vote, I'm still not convinced it meets WP:NBIO, but I won't oppose if consensus overturns deletion. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks... this certainly has no hope -- if even you are not convinced it meets WP:NBIO. I'm stating out of the discussion as far as possible - except to counter straight up falsehoods, like "obviously" Hit and Biddle collaborated. One thing I TRIED to get recognized at the original AfD I think without anyone even answering the point, was that the notability guidelines allow for exceptions for unusual people in a field. I think this was at the beginning of the Notability/People guidelines, and then specifically mentioned in Authors. Maybe academics as well. I recall the guidelines saying something about that in some fields such as those people are influential and written about and recognized as important in their own fields, the standard notability guidelines to be written about elsewhere did not necessarily apply. I am pondering bringing that up again. Biddle is certainly that as he is a converted paranormal enthusiast, now published by important organizations (JREF, CSI...), and embraced as an expert in what he does by his former "enemies." And his investigations are used by others (Radford, Hill...) Find another in this category. You can't. That's why I wrote this article in the first place. It irks me to no end to come across articles on soccer players and the like who are a dime a dozen... who played in one game, and have an article with minimal refs that they did that. and THEY are WP:notable. Something is very wrong with this. RobP (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Just found the old AfD... search for "unusual" here. I think that argument got nowhere largely because it was being promoted by newer editors, and was dismissed without fair consideration. Obviously because it is a "rare" condition, the experienced people were not used to dealing with it or even thinking about it, whereas newer people - not having a fixed way to see things - thought this exception was clearly applicable to this case. RobP (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I always interpreted the dictionary definitions in the opening paras of WP:NBIO to be part of a general intro to the concept rather than a magic loophole. If there are individuals that were deemed notable based primarily on the subject being considered to be remarkable, interesting, or unusual by an editor, that would surprise me. But hey, I get surprised on WP all the time. ;) - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

thanks

Hi LuckyLouie, I just wanted to thank you for working so patiently with my student on the Ghost hunting article. I know that it can be difficult to work with people as they are learning the ropes and that it can often create more work for others--especially on a fringe topic like this. So thanks!Etherfire (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I've come across student work in many articles, both good and bad. One recurring issue I see is a misperception that high word count additions will impress the instructor and result in a favorable grade. IMO, one well-written paragraph is much more impressive, because a student has to put in a fair amount of effort to research a handful of high quality sources, read and understand these, and then craft a summary of what those sources are saying in their own words to avoid plagiarism. Another issue is, because students are used to academic writing where "don't just parrot the sources, make novel connections and draw original conclusions" are the goals, they run into problems on Wikipedia, because its goals are literally the exact opposite. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

re: disruptive editing

hello, did you read what I wrote on Ogopogo english talk page before calling my edit a disruptive edit ? Ogbaba (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	for your heroic defense of the encyclopedia against invading UFOs (and the conspiracy theorists who pilot them.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a joke

"... with security agencies [and Wikipedia] seeking to suppress the evidence ..." —PaleoNeonate – 18:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Right. My paycheck from the Illuminati/New World Order is late again this month ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The Cigarette Smoking Man just left here... —PaleoNeonate – 19:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to ping

I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 16#School ghost Stories and forgot to include the ping. Would you take a look as I was seeking clarification on comments you made. Otr500 (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Scared!

Hi LuckyLouie. I have a question about the subject article which I see you were involved with in the past. This is what I have ascertained from the edit history:

• This article was originally published as a live article on May 11, 2007‎ by user Mrmister22
• On Feb 10 & 11 2009, you added flags such as: and .
• On March 10, 2009 the article was moved to Mrmister22's user space (presently in user space User:Mrmister22/SCARED!) by Aervanath (apparently as deletion was being considered). This note was left at User talk:Mrmister22:

Hi, in response to your e-mail, the SCARED! article and it's history have now been restored to your own userspace, at User:Mrmister22/SCARED!, where it should be safe from deletion. If you have any further requests or questions, please leave a message on my talk page, User talk:Aervanath. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 2:41 am, 10 March 2009, Tuesday (10 years, 5 months, 20 days ago) (UTC−4)

• The last edit in user space was on Aug 4, 2009
• The article was then re-created as a stub in article space on Feb 18, 2010 by (now blocked) user SIbuff.
• From that date to last edit on May 7, 2018 the article was expanded, with a large percent added by Mrmister22 using the version in their user space.

My problem with this is that the article's original author and main contributor, Mrmister22, is the show's producer, Brian J. Cano,[35][36] and no COI was declared that I can find. This is certainly breaking some major WP rules, but the question is, at this late date, is there anything that can or should be done? RobP (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi RobP. If the article still exists in user space, you can list it at WP:MFD. But I see nothing at the link you gave. If the banned user is socking under another username, you can take it to WP:ANI. But I don't see any links. Did I miss anything? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey. Odd link issue. The "!" in the name screwed up the non-wiki link URL. Changed it to a wikilink now. However, the current user space article is not the issue. (I just referenced it as evidence of how the actual article got created by Mrmister22 in his user space.) I am more questioning if there is any recourse against someone found to be breaking such a major rule. No declared COI and all that. RobP (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with COI cases, and am not sure how a COI user that apparently hasn't edited since 2011 might be treated. But Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard should be your first stop to getting your questions answered. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Bob Lazar article

Hi! I've added a new section to the discussion of the Bob Lazar article, about the statement that his claims were unproven. The source is too weak in my opinion to make that statement. Please let's discuss it there. Cutter (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, what was wrong with my comment in the Ouija disscussion?!?

That was not a change of the article, that was just a comment in the discussion. Factual information on the section topic. Why was this deleted? Because it has proven paranormal phenomena? That's hard evidence. Besides, that's not the article, just the discussion. If you tell me what I did wrong then I change the comment. It was a concrete answer to the section question. That cost time (sources etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias Claren (talk • contribs)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Vintage amateur radio, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Graywalls (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Greetings from the Magic World

Hello, LucyLouie. In 2015 FISM (the International Federation of Magical Societies) invited Uri Geller to deliver an inspirational, motivational lecture to over 1500 Magicians at FISM Italy. Uri’s highly acclaimed performance has been used along with other exclusive footage to create the first ever DVD from Uri Geller, “The Uri Geller Trilogy.” You will find this available on Ebay. I picked up one at a magic shop for $5. On the DVD set Geller admits he is a magician and can perform seven tricks. A magician performs illusions to entertain and awaken wonder and astonishment. Geller is NOT a magician. He is a con-artist who has made millions. He is addicted to the thrill of power, a rush of being able to pull one over on people and get away with it. He is very likely amoral. He claims he has changed but he has not. One only has to look at his web site. On the DVDs Uri does NOT explain his deceptions at SRI. He shows the SRI film clip. These are explained in: Flim-Flam: The Truth About Unicorns, Parapsychology and Other Delusions, by James Randi, Chapter 7, The Laurel and Hardy of Psi, pages 131-160, Lippincott & Crowell, Publishers, 1980. I suspect the magicians who thought they were going to get treated to Geller's explanation at this lecture of this classic SRI hoax or on the DVD set were very disappointed. (The initial price of this DVD set was $90.) But if you paid the big buck it is unlikely you would complain.

On the 2nd DVD of the Uri Geller Trilogy he talks about this one. Only he omits the deception part. One celebrated stunt was Geller’s “clairvoyant” knowledge of the death of Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser on September 28, 1970. Uri, giving a stage performance that day, appeared to faint in front of the audience, asked for a doctor, and appeared to be in critical condition. While apparently in some sort of spasm, he muttered faintly, “Nasser just died.” The announcement met with disbelief, was regarded as a somewhat crude joke by the audience, and there was laughter. But on leaving the performance, the audience learned of Nasser’s death and was duly impressed with Uri’s “crisis clairvoyance.” In actual fact, news of the Egyptian presidents death had been broadcast during the performance; a note with the news had been covertly slipped to Uri while he was on stage. Overall, Pelz stated, Geller has excellent presence of mind, a gift to solve or exploit unforeseen circumstances, knows how to extemporize and manipulate his audiences. Israeli impresario, Parapsychologist Daniel Pelz (He left Uri Geller) Exploit your opponent's weakness. Capitalize (profit) on another's human frailty.

Psychic seed growing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9MlA03GtKY Uri Geller exploits children https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN_AC9KHlM8 Uri Teaches Spoon Bending you can do at home.

The Psychic and the Rabbi: A Remarkable Correspondence by Uri Geller and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Sourcebooks Inc, 2001 (Playing on God is always a winner for Uri Geller) Con artists who get away with their scams for numerous years are extremely intelligent and are always likable. (Geller was a male model that helped.) They tell us what we want to hear and promise us what we secretly want. Sorry. I abhor brevity. Valuable data gets left out. Happy Magic. Miistermagico (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Bob Lazar

The source you removed from the page is just a mirror containing the scan of the newspaper. You can find it elsewhere to verify. The source is not the website but the newspaper.

I will restore the edit. If you have better ideas on how to link to the source let me know. Gtoffoletto (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

See the article Talk page, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I just inspected the recent article's history and would like to thank you for your vigilance in relation to unreliable sources that have recently been inserted (and since removed). —PaleoNeonate – 04:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

A second opinion on significance?

Dear LuckyLouie, I made an attempt to add the following to Mind–body dualism but got WIPED OUT.

The body of evidence built up over years by psychologists and neurologists about the function of the mind/brain cannot simply be bypassed or dismissed. The monist (singleness) position was at one time a rather radical one that came gradually to be accepted because of the weight of evidence, and not because researchers wanted to avoid dualism.

The reasons being:

as a quote it doesn't add anything of significance to the article, it's the POV of one writer and WP:WEIGHT says, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" – if you think it is significant, then it would be best to discuss it on the article Talk page and seek consensus from other editors – you say, the Alcock quote adds nothing to aid our understanding of mind-body dualism. Isn't likely the sciences of PSYCHOLOGY and NEUROLOGY give us a better understanding of mind-body dualism than philosophy? Perhaps I am mistaken but I would think the view of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Alcock has some importance in this matter. Please reply soon. Miistermagico (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Ufology

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ufology sprawling edit war

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ufology sprawling edit war. --— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

mmmm...beer

Thank you for making Pentagon UFO videos a reality. The LGM and I salute you. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep,’twas consensus, not me, but appreciate the thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to RedWarn

Hello, LuckyLouie! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 90 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 13:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Cathy O'Brien

I did not write my own opinion. What I wrote was entirely documented fact and stands as testimony before congress. Before you suggest such things, I would recommend research and reading what I wrote properly. Are you biased against victims? Are you biased against documented fact? No where did I state my own opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshleyCaprice (talk • contribs) 14:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Translation issue: DE: "Sektenchefin" -> EN: "cult leader" in "Fiat Lux" article

Hello fellow editor,

the current version of the article Fiat Lux (UFO religion) contains a reference to a "Die Welt" article entitled "Sektenchefin Uriella fordert, Pädophilen freizulassen", which was first introduced by you in this version on 2015-11-22.

The translation of the term "Sektenchefin" as "Champagne boss" is incorrect, though.

The (in my opinion) correct English translation of both literal meaning and intended ring of the German phrase "Sektenchefin" would be "cult leader". The German version has a distinct negative connotation (and Springer publications are not known for their subtlety, anyway). The same is true for the English version, I believe. It should thus be appropriate to also include this connotation in the translation - if a translation is given at all.

Can you verify my assumption about the connotation of "cult leader"? Do you want to include the correction in the article, or should I go forward and do it myself? - Or do you think the translation should just be dropped?

All the best! Schlauschnacker (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article characterizing Fiat Lux as a cult, or the leader as a cult leader, since this is supported by other WP:RS: [37] as well as some already in the article such as Blick. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  <sup>talk</sup> 14:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello, I saw you reverted my additions to Close encounter only 7 minutes after I made them. I would ask that you take further time to review these additions. For instance, the new interview with Paul Hynek, son of J. Allen Hynek, on the update to the classification system lasts longer than 7 minutes, so it is impossible for you to have reviewed that material in full in this timespan.

I was left the message, "Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia". Thank you for letting me know why you reverted my changes. However, not only was it not my intention to add 'promotional' material, but it was unnecessary to have all of the edits reverted, instead of piecewise removing such promotional material (if it was even added). Can you please indicate which parts you consider promotional, and why? You could edit my latest version, with promotional content removed, and we could go from there – what do you say? To the best of my knowledge, I only linked free resources (that do not require any payment, much like Wikipedia itself). I put effort into updating the page based on recent developments, and would not like to have this effort go to waste. If there is only a formatting or citation issue that you are aware of, please direct me on how to improve the formatting. Everything I have added is verifiable and I would be happy to point you toward further verification sources. Thank you in advance for getting back to me so we can further the pursuit of free and open knowledge. Kind regards, Felewin (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Felewin: The burden does not rest on LuckyLouie to sort through your edits and manually remove problematic material in order to preserve anything that might be positive. This might be a practical approach if the edits largely conformed with our guidelines. But in this case they do not. Please see WP:PROFRINGE, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ad Orientem, and thank you very much for your response. In order to be clear, can you point to which particular sources you deem unacceptable? Thus far, only other Wikipedia pages on best practice have been shared. We should be able to determine this, as justification for the change. If it would take too much of your time, you could at the very least select one source and explain the issue with it, yes? It would also help to educate me if there is a key rule I am not aware of, as you claim. I don't think this is too much for me to ask. Here is a relevant excerpt from Help:Reverting: "Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing?" In particular, considering what one objects to should be able to be explained when asked. I will also review those pages you shared. Thank you, Felewin (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Felewin. As far as I can tell all of the sources cited in your edits fail WP:RS. YouTube is almost never an acceptable source and the others appear to be WP:FRINGE. Ideally sources should be reliable, independent and secondary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, if an interview was conducted between two people and is only available on Youtube, how else can it be cited on Wikipedia? Does one need to generate a transcript? Does it have to be covered in the news? In this case, the interview is with Paul Hynek, son of J. Allen Hynek, who formed the original Close encounter classification system. As far as I'm concerned, that is very relevant, and for the sake of knowledge should be included, particularly because it was a milestone for the addition of a new class to the classification system. Please understand that I am interested in citing the indisputable fact that this interview occurred and am willing to explore alternatives to citing Youtube, but thought it best to share the direct source. What do you think is the best approach? I am open to suggestions. As for the other sources, I don't see how WP:RS applies *because of the fact that I am not making claims about the claims the sources make*. Is Wikipedia so mainstream that it isn't allowed to cite sources which would appear fringe to most people, just to say they exist? Are we to pretend that such things do not exist, simply because they are not mainstream? It's not like you have to agree with the content of the sources. I only made meta-claims in the sense that I was stating such things exist. I am not claiming any of the claims of those sources to be grounded in reality; that is a separate matter; I only stated that such sources exist. To put it more concretely; can it be argued that the following websites do not exist?: https://ace5handbook.com/ http://etletstalk.com/ Absolutely not. Furthermore, they are entirely free resources, so it is not promotional of me to mention them. If I was claiming that the claims of those sources are true, that would be another matter. But all I am doing is indicating the effect that Dr. Greer's work has had. This is not a matter of opinion, superstition, or belief. It is objectively true that those sites exist and that they have come about as a result of Dr. Greer's work. If there is anything else that catches your attention as a violation, please let me know. I must be sincere with you that I still do not understand the cause for reversion, although I suspect there is some suspicion at quick glance. This is indicated by the quick response (7 minutes after my edits), as well as your stating that "the others appear to be WP:FRINGE" which sounds like a perusal. Is that fair to say? Again, you can peruse them and critique their individual validity, but I am only citing the fact that they exist, not that the claims of the sources are verifiable. I'm thankful for your discussion and your commitment to Wikipedia. Looking forward to your response, and thanks for your time and effort. Felewin (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Felewin: The community has long determined that YouTube is not a reliable source as defined by WP:RS. For the record, I concur with that determination. It has no editorial oversight and is frequently used for self promotion and the promotion of views that are rejected by mainstream experts in the subject field. Wikipedia is not, and the community has firmly decided that it will not be a vehicle for the promotion of fringe ideas and theories. That said, some fringe beliefs are notable by virtue of having been discussed in mainstream reliable secondary sources. When that occurs, and there are RS sources that can be cited, then they may be mentioned and discussed. But fringe sources may normally only be discussed to the extent that have been covered in RS sources. I realize that this may be frustrating, but it is important to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that only repeats what has been stated elsewhere by RS sources. We are not a clearing house for all ideas and beliefs. Nor are we especially concerned with what is true or not. (See WP:NOTTRUTH.) We only report what has already been stated by independent reliable sources, with a very strong preference for secondary sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientum, again thank you for your time and sticking with me here. It is clear you are truly commmitted to Wikipedia's principles. I am interested in sharing up-to-date information within the confines of Wikipedia's rules. At present, information is lacking that seems to me should be easy to include. What you shared honestly makes so much sense, on paper. And I respect that theory in principle myself: a Youtuber's opinion is not often sufficient to represent mainstream knowledge. However, it is clear that this is not always going to be the point upon which a statement should depend. It should be possible, for example (as a thought experiment), to present a list of the most popular Youtube channels in a Wikipedia format for December 2019. This would require citation to those Youtube channels. This citation does not imply that those Youtube channels speak nothing but the truth. It only implies that they exist. The rules just aren't well-shaped enough, by your description, to allow for complete information verification on Wikipedia pages, by citing Youtube channels in such an instance; is it true that, as far as you know, there is no way (within Wikipedia's rules) to mention on the Close encounters page that Paul Hynek was consulted in a recorded, in-person, video interview setting about adding a new classification to the system his father created? Even though it is extremely relevant? And easily provable with video footage? If so, I will need to forget about Wikipedia altogether as a useful way of compiling information, and regard it as a site for "mainstream"-only (which is unfortunately also a subjective determination) and objectively out-of-date knowledge. If that is true, then so be it. I did not create the rules of this platform. If this is *not* the case, please proceed by telling me how I can include such information within the rules as you see them. I am *all ears* on ways to share verifiable knowledge, which is all I wish to achieve here. To be exact, the only statement I wish to prove in this regard (to your Youtube discussion) is the following: "A Close Encounter of the Sixth Kind is human-initiated contact (as in CE-5) but on a global scale, via synchronized meditation across the world. The Harmonic Convergence 2020 event is where this concept was introduced; as part of the event, Mark Sims interviewed Paul Hynek, son of J. Allen Hynek himself (who defined the original classifications), about this very Wikipedia page and this new classification." This statement is objectively true, indisputable, and not based on any "ideas and beliefs" as you bring up when saying "We are not a clearing house for all ideas and beliefs." and the video recording's existence proves that my statement is true, objectively. I wish to cite this fact and don't even have interest in implying that I agree with everything in the discussion recorded in the interview therein. So: • is this possible, with Youtube or any other means of citation • or is it not, meaning Wikipedia is forced to stay out-of-date on this extremely relevant topic (a literal video discussing the very Wikipedia page in question on the topic of a system created by the interviewee's father) I eagerly await your response. Thanks again for all your help, Felewin (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Felewin: This is a topic that comes up quite frequently. YouTube channels and personalities can only be covered to the extent that they have been mentioned or covered in mainstream independent reliable secondary sources. YouTube is not in and of itself a reliable source. If the statement you wish to add is objectively true (which is actually irrelevant from our perspective) then it should be discussed at length in the aforementioned RS sources to a sufficient degree that it is not only verifiable, but also meets the conditions of WP:DUE. If such coverage does not presently exist, then it may not be added into the article or any other, until those conditions are satisfied. I realize that is not the answer you are hoping for, but thems the rules. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem: So be it. Wikipedia is not what I think it should be. At least future readers who find this thread will be made aware. I thank you for your time and wish you the best. Felewin (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)