User talk:Mabydont

Talk to me !

No original research
Hi, Mabydont. I see User:Future Kick removed material from Out-of-body experience, stating in their edit summaries that it lacked a reliable source. It did; near-death.com is clearly not a reliable source. You restored the material with the edit summary "No justification for deleting all this". It seems to me that Future Kick gave a clear, specific justification, while you gave no justification for restoring it. Nor have you supplied a reliable, or any, source. The source (Tart's report) is poor in itself, and also doesn't contain anything like the text "However, upon closer inspection of Tart's actual report, "There was only enough slack to allow the subject to sit up. Had she tried to stand, the electrodes would have been disconnected." She was also in a position that did not give her visual access to Tart's physical proximity. So even if he had dozed, the subject would have no way of determining this. Therefore, the odds that she cheated at exactly the right time to be able to perform such an action when Tart was "dozing," are, in themselves, stretching the boundaries of credulity. It seems to be original research, or speculation, written rather strangely for an encyclopedia: more like an essay, with "however", "odds", "stretching the boundaries of credulity", etc, all in Wikipedia's voice. Please don't restore the material again. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC).
 * Adding: Don't re-add it at Charles Tart, either. The text was originally added to both articles by an IP. Was that you? Bishonen &#124; talk 20:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC).
 * No, that wasn't me : I didn't write or add the text originally, and I haven't been posting anything as an IP; I just restored the text after someone suddenly deleted it after it had been in these articles for awhile. Even if this section of text had some problems, it provided some desperately needed balance and could have been improved rather than being deleted wholesale. But the pattern in these articles for months has been for wholesale deletion of any countervailing viewpoint. If I had more time, I could try to write up some additions with proper sources, but I suspect it'll just get deleted automatically. A few months ago, one editor was even deleting medical journal article citations as if they were "unreliable", so it doesn't seem to make any difference what type of sources are used.  Mabydont (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)