User talk:Dave6/Archive/01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:Dave6 | Archive
You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Re: Lolo images

Hi and thanks for the head's up. They are scans from the Japanese manual and slightly edited by myself with better coloring and what have you. The originals weren't quite accurate, hence my improvements. I will try to add this copyright info soon.

[edit] Smiling Promotes Good Edits!

Tingle has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}} or {{subst:smile2}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!


[edit] Hey baby

Chill dem jets of fire babe

[edit] Vandalism

Yes, Holy See was a vandalism, and pls. revert all of my todays contribusions. Too much beers tonite. But I'm finish. I will not give any reason anymore to block IP.

All "joke" contribs now cleared.

[edit] Sandbox Vandalism

I am quite aware that there is a test-wiki. I did not move the sandbox. The message on my talk page was reguarding another user who did. Also, your welcome message was only placed on your talk page earlier this morning: I'd forgoe telling users to use the Test-wiki until you've been a member a bit longer.--[[User:Gabriel Webber|Gabriel Webber (babble were rig)]] 08:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry if that was taken the wrong way. I was just trying to provide information, not tell anyone what to do. I don't care what you do. Maybe I'll start caring after I've been around longer, but for now, I don't :-)

[edit] RE: Groovera vandalism

First off, thank you for reverting the page blanking by 71.70.90.182. This vandal has struck the Groovera article again (you should see the history log) and with a little investigation into this IP's history of posts, editors have removed linkage he had added to the Downtempo Wikipedia article. Do you think we should we proceed against this individual? Thanks! --Qazjaz 06:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Financial Models

Thanks for your first response, please the detailed question in the Math Ref Desk. Thank you again. --Foundby 03:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question moved from top

why are u such a nazi?

  • Are you referring to the fact that I reverted this edit? Dave6 09:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the vandalism revert

Many thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. Much appreciated, Gwernol 04:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article for Speedy Deletion

I've nominated your article Radar detector detector detector for speedy deletion per CSD1. If this is incorrect, please remove the CSD tags. Thanks. --James Kidd (Contr/Email) 05:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everybody Loves Raymond

Why did you remove my Edits to Marie? Drake Clawfang 21:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that! The IP address that edited the article before you was using the page for test edits, which I removed. I put your text back into the article. Dave6 21:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Revert to my Userpage

Thanks to the revert to the vandalism done to my userpage, I highly appreciate it. :) ThePointblank 20:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Response

Jeff Gordon is in fact a Klan member, check the Ku Klux Klan page yourself. MCAhass 04:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the KKK page is referring to George Gordon, a Confederate Civil War general who died in 1911. Jeff Gordon (whose page you vandalized) is a race car driver who was born in 1971. Dave6 04:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For your persistant work

Thumbs Up Award
Thumbs Up Award

in reverting vandalism I am glad to award you the highly coveted Thumbs Up Award. Thanks, Dave6, for protecting Luis Jiménez (sculptor)‎ and a bunch of other articles. Carptrash 15:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 10:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HelpMe!

What do you mean by "reordering"? ?_? Sklocke 02:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by reordering? ;) Xiner (talk, email) 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This was from User:Sklocke about one of User:Dave6's edit summaries, I gather. --Sopoforic 02:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You Another user changed one of the store numbers in the chart at Fry's_Electronics#Locations. That chart is sorted by store number. I just rearranged the list so they would be in the right order. Dave6 02:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage vandal

Thank you. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you also. Normy132 11:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frustrated

New system for warnings is not that easy to get into - and considering the techno guy - all his edits today have been vandalism - just a limp warning for that - Then the AIV pag has finger wagging item about those who have had full range of warnings - and are continuing not stopped - which means wikipedia savvy vandals can do their thing until they are caught - happy to know that they wont get blocked if they go quiet after some limp warning.... nah, I recckon the blunderbuss with pelets would be better! SatuSuro 03:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for removing the vandalism from my page, it was really interesting to read it though. Keep up the good work. --Nehrams2020 07:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incoming

User talk:82.42.83.143 switched from Pilotguy and is now attacking you. 07:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. He did that after I put the upv4 on his talk page, so I reported him to AIV. Dave6 07:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It took three of us to keep up with him before an Admin showed up....nice timing. Where did these characters come from? HJ 07:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Colbert and Hyperreality Edit

Hi Dave6,

(I hope I'm posting this in the right place...) I realize you've had a lot of problems with vandalism. However, I feel that my contribution (though slightly cheeky) is legitimate. The entry defines hyperreality: "Hyperreality is a way of characterizing the way the consciousness interacts with "reality". Specifically, when a consciousness loses its ability to distinguish reality from fantasy, and begins to engage with the latter without understanding what it is doing, it has shifted into the world of the hyperreal." Additionally, under The Significance of Hyperreality, it says: "Consumerism, because of its reliance on sign exchange value (e.g. brand X shows that one is fashionable, car Y indicates one's wealth), could be seen as a contributing factor in the creation of hyperreality or the hyperreal condition." Colbert's (a fictional television character) statement that "reality has become a commodity" as well as the appeal to use this statement in altering Wikipedia's definition of the term is, I think, a rich and complex embodiment of hyperreality.

I thought that this was a really interesting way of both contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive way, while answering Colbert's call. Perhaps I should have elaborated further in my original entry. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. I'm new to this, so I'm not sure if I'm even responding in the right place. If you feel I have made a case for my entry, please let me know--I'd like to repost, perhaps in a more articulate way. Can you please tell me how I should proceed? I feel that incorporating Colbert's attempts to rabble-rouse rather than blocking them out completely means that Wikipedia can retain its collective quality while maintaining a certain degree of accuracy and credibility.

Thank You,

--Audreyhorne 22:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(I believe that when I posted my edit on Jan 31st, I was not signed in, sorry.)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Dave6/Archive/01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 04:17, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

hi . i have removed the first paragrah with its personal reference as it is this it seems which has causedf the most offence. and sheffulled the now paragraphs one and two so that it is more explicit why the other matereal is being discussed . more specificall , it gives a context for understanding that the very existence of the term , claIRSENTIENCE NEEDS SOME BACKROUND ISSUES WEIGHING UP . EG , DESCARTES AND THE PRIMACY OF INNER EXPERIENCE . THE RUPERT SHELDRAKE and the holographic model of the universe as defined by bohm and then the reasearch of lylle watson to show that there is proof in the empirical mode that there may be veracity to such claims .Thesource42 16:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

i hope this is amplification of the train of my article and its thought process . i am hoping to articulate and explain the necessity of each piece of referenced matereal in more detail so that it can be seen by all who come to it to by congruent.

also , as it says in the wikpedia guidlines which you have referred me to . the burden is on the iditors to prove to the article composers satisfaction that each piece removed has been done for an entirely valid reason with very specific regard to the issues being treated and explored in said article . so can you please respect this guidline and discuss more specifically your claims before removing any or all of it agian . with respec , thankyou. Thesource42 16:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

on the subject of the clairsentience article with regard to wiki guidlines and formatting.


the following is an interaction with v-man which i have also pasted elsewhere to give a flavour of my aproach and why it is vital that we talk about the actual issues involved here . tightening up the various formatting is secondary and with some help from anyone who has more of an idea about the sepecifics of this would be greatfully recieved . Thesource42 15:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Usually, acquainting oneself with Wikipedia's modus operandi will explain the reasons for certain actions that sometimes one could take offense from. First and foremost I would recommend you read WP:OWN, which explains why your frustration in having "your" article being modified is unnecessary. Next would be the lengthy pages linked around WP:FIVE, regarding rules and conventions. WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE are all very important ones that can help you circumvent your troubles. When you have read and are familiar with those, you will be able to use them to contribute to Wikipedia unhindered. V-Man737 04:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

hi dave , i have posted the following piece across a wide range of areas where i thought these issues were not being adressed with any balance , cheers for listening . loon . Thesource42 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clairsentience Article

hi i am putting together an article on clairsentience , which seems to have fallen under the control of the parapsychology department , the difficulty being that they dont seem to understand the philosophical context which must be discussed to even begin talking about this issue . they talk about objectivity and neutrality , but as you and others have noted , there is no such thing and in fact some quite narrtow minded prejudices are being expressed across wikpedia on a wide range of subjects . Thesource42 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

if wikpedia is going to have articles on people such as terence mckenna , robert anton wilson , barbara brennan , rupert sheldrake , ken wilbur etc then contibuters to these articles must be allowed to express some of the flavour and philosophy of these pioneering thinkers . knowledge if it is truly about exploration , discovery and curiosity should not be kept fozen stiff like a dead branch if it is to flourish . the rational yang is no good out of balance without the intuitive mystery and creative imagination of the yin . if psychadelic mushrooms are to be covered for example then why is the pre eminent scholar and ethnobotanist terence mckenna not referenced here. Thesource42 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

also , if someone with a progressive aproach such as rupert sheldrake given a page yet the quality and flavour of it is hacked at by vultures of dumb blind intent while elsewhere sheldrake is not considered a valid scientific source for reference by miopic wikpedians . the pedantry , rampant here where every tick and whistle is used as an escuse to hack at the body and spirit of large numgers of progressive articles across the site . it seems the closed minds here have not understood the true nature and spirit of knowledge which is a living flowing river , a living book , ever changing , always evolving . wasnt it just yesterday when " scientists told us that extra tererstrial intelligences were impossible , and didnt they keep it kina quite when they all changed their minds . hasnt the flat earth society always been this way . they starve wikpedia of the oxygen of creativity , imagination , joy , mystery .... it is rational yang out balance , which my friend is a cold dead thing with his consort , lady yin and her deep mysteries and intuition .Thesource42 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

if your going to have a page on basrbara brennan or clairsentience then the philosophical issues must be allowed to breath and live without the bigots of empirical science hacking into the living branch.

if you could help me get my article into shape , specifically formating issues , it is posted on my user page for now . my main concern is that wiki formats are being abused and badly interpreted in order to vandalise to body and flavour of articles in wikpedia generally , especially ones who are discussing ideas at the forefront of eploration with regards to the object in hyperspace we are coming towards . i have referenced david bohm , lylle watson , rupert sheldrake , barbara brennan , ken wilbur , terence mckenna and robert anton wilson for this perpose , because it is the only way to establish a context for even the existence of clairsentience as an object. as i say in my article , implicit within nthe word itself is a higher dimensional sense world and higher tuned senses with which to aprehend it , therefore i have had to provide a background for understanding an alternative mechanism for both this unusual transmission of information and the existence of a more broadly defined holographic universe .Thesource42 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

to bring a way of understanding the arrival in humanity of these new phenomena i have referenced ken wilber with regards to emergence and from pop culture , the x men and diana troy from star trk next generation to express the flavour of the idea of emerging newly evolved states of coscoussness , to which mckenna and a wilson are also allies in the understanding of other realities , shifted perception and altered states .Thesource42 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

do you see , how , in the context of a dry empirical ration mode , none of this can be discussed , yet the existence of the word clairsentience begs for it and as i have previously said , if your going to have this word on your site then your going to have to allow it to breath its life into here . the word implies a sense which is super human and out of the range of empirical science , so in that case one cannot merely stick to entirely rational modes for describing ite place in the human mind , culture etc which is why i have had to draw on such i wide range of disciplines in order to define it . this then leads to the possibility that this subject should not be in th parapsychology section with their pretentions of science and should perhaps nest somewhere else , although each field i think mof seems inapropriate , eg . philosophy? psychadelia ? altered states ? spirituality ? etc...Thesource42 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

from the various things i have read in your user talk etc i can see that you have some insight (rare here ) into the irrationality and prejudices of those here claiming objectivity and neutrality and also the hypocracy of the attitides of moderators and editors with regards to who`s view are valued and who`s are not . as i have said elsewhere they hold some very closed minded philosophies yet are ignorant that they hold any philosophy at all . any help with regards the many issues ive raised here , but more specifically , with my article would be greatfully recieved. with many thanks , loon .Thesource42 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)



1. first of all in respons to wp.own . i do not own the article or any of the other information which has been collected from many other peoples lifetimes work and in respone to the other comments on wikpedia rules from yesterday they are all correctly referenced and sourced. 2. wp.five , if you or any one else wants to discuss any way of making the article neutral i would be happy to do so . my difficulty as you can see if you`ve read the article itself , is that in order to put forward all of the source matereal available , as i have done , one has to start somewhere . and as clearly , implicit in the meaning of the word clairsentience , is another layer of reality being accessed and therefore also some other mechanism for this exchange of information than conventional aproaches can allow , that i had to create a context for this understasnding which meant referencing descartes , and ken wilber , and robert antonwilson , and barbara brennan etc.

do you get my point . this is standard practice in scholarly circles when determining a new thesis on fresh ground in an unusual area of study . plus , all of these sources are highly regarded and each has many highly regardfed references of their own which they , just like me , have drawn on to contextualise their own work.

are you willing to work with me on this and both talk about the specific issues involved in writing an article about a subject which is breaking new ground , blue skies in fact. although , as i have show , there is already much highly respected research in this area , rupert sheldrake and the morphagenic field whom barbara brennan herself quotes as she does , dr, david bohm and lyll watson etc. i was very thorough in creating this article , this is why i was so frustrated when the other two consistantly vandalised it without any care.

also, they seem , by their comments to know very little about the area being discussed . martinphi seems convinced that psychometry is directly connected with clairsetience . which i can assure you it is definitely not , but his erronius couple of lines stay put while my highly developed and researched article is removed . on another talk page he out of hand says something about claircoyance being not connected to hearing , from the perspective that he clearly thinks it might be . revealing that he has not understood the basic terminology . clairsentience is clear feeling , clairaudience , clear hearing , claircognisance , clear thinking and clairvoyance is clear seeing .

implicit in my article is the point that conventional science (rational empirical science ) cannot as yet vouch for or measure the properties of the qualities of experience i am describing , thus my descarte quote and the robert anton wilson quote that " any technology so far beyond your own will be percieved as magic. also implicit in this , is , that you dont have to believe in magic , or that the theorem being proposed is " the next technology " as it were , in fact , i have given all other opinions on the matter full acknowledgment in my descartes section where individual experience is noted for its primacy.

my final proposition in the article is taken in part from david horrobins decriptions of the arrival of homo sapiens and then from the X men . this article cannot be about "fact " as clairsentience pre supposes both a super human sense and a trans dimensional sense world , neither of which can be " proved real " by convcentional science , thus my ken wilber quote about emergence , holism and mahyana buhdism which create an overview for a context sociohistoric , in which these things can be understood .

there is no empirical proof that clairsentience exists , and as i think , i hint in the article , a mental health diagnosis would be the western rational viewpoint : but there are a few measurable objects which seem to be revealing an object. thus the lylle watson reference to the one hundredth monkey research which clearly shows a mechanism of transmision which he describes as outside of any " normal " method. if one were to follow up any of my references as any curios reader might , they would also find an entire lifetimes worth ofv research of a similar kind by rupert sheldrake etc. i have been pretty thorough here you know .

that the present few lines which areill concieved and impotent on the subject od clairsentience still stand while this much more complete and thorough article stands in the wings is madness .

if , on the other hand you want to help me tighten up the article so that it passes all of the wikpedia guidlines , i will be happy to work with you , and thankyou for your generous and more open perspective , i will endeavour to make an effort to understand the various bells and whistles and hoops i must jump through . in good faith .82.47.216.89 14:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Thesource42 15:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism at nonviolence

You installed a weasel words tag to nonviolence, I understand. I'd be interested on your reasons in the interest of improving the article.

John D. Croft 05:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one that added the tag, but it doesn't surprise me that nonviolence would attract a few weasel words. Dave6 16:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the help on my userpage. I don't understand why that user decided to target me.... --N Shar 01:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the help

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. --Ann Stouter 09:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto! Thanks! --Nlu (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from User:Thesource42

hi dave , you clearly also are not grown up enough to discuss the issues involved . you clearly know nothing about extrasensory perception , other modes of reality or any of the issues raised by such a debate or you would have discussed them with me as an adult .

the two , nealparr and martinphi would not discuss the issues point for point either . both clearly knowing nothing of the research or the groundwork which has already been done here .dumb.

Whatever dispute it is you're having with those 2 editors, please don't make unwelcome edits to their user pages. Dave6 talk 04:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another comment from User:thesource42

if any of you are adult enough to discuss the following issues then i will be more than happy to do so . otherwise i am moving to bring about abritration from the administrator .

The following piece of reasearch was done by Tim Crosby who was both the subject , with the condition known as clairsentience , and also the researcher who , much like research chemists in former times , on the edge of new discoveries , used themselves as white mice in white coats to test a new as yet untried compound.

He developed a philosophical aproach over 15 years of research which he found indispensable given the nature of the study area he was exploring. unlike empirical science which hopes to measure the matereal world and then to gradually reach understandings of its workings through repeated testing , the mind and its contents apears to be a somewhat more slippery fish . Descartes after many years of dedicated reasoning came to the conclusion that no one could prove beyond a doubt that anything coming into the self via the senses could be proved to be objectively existant including measurments , graphs ; other people`s research etc ; the whole external world , and as ethnobotanist terence mckenna put it , " you are at the centre of the only universe you will ever know ".

This pre amble is necessary when coming at the word clairsentience in a way which does justice to the nature of the self/reality which is implicit in its existence as a concept but also its very meaning which is embedded in human culture at large . The word itself pre supposes both a self ; a supra higher dimesional sense world and implicitly , a group of senses and sense organs of a new more highly developed nature.

For the most complete and detailed research in this area i suggest one takes a long look at the work of ex nasa scientist barbara brennan who after a research post at nasa exploring the nature of electromagnetic fields , later developed higher sense perception to a very advanced level. Her work in this area is pre eminent and gives a broader and deeper understanding on the relationships of higher sense perception including , clairaudience , clairvoiance , claircognisance and of course clairsentience ; and their relationship to higher worlds / dimensions of the universe and self.

for more information go to http://www.barbarabrennan.com/

Her aproach contextualises these newly discovered layers of reality within the framework of the holographic theory of the universe suggested by pysicist Dr. David Bohm in his book " the implicate order " in which he calls the manifest reality " the explicate enfolded order ", in which , " parts are seen to be in immediate connection , in which their dynamical relationships depend in an irreducible way on the state of the whole system......Thus, one is led to a new notion of unbroken wholeness which denies the classical idea of analyzability of the world into seperately and independantly existent parts." and also The Morphagenic field theory ( from morph, "form " , and genesis , " coming into being. " ) of Rupert Sheldrake which is explored more fully in his book "A New Science of Life ".

The action of this field involves " action at a distance " in both space and time . Rather than form being determined by physical laws outside of time , it depends on morphic resonance across time . This means that morphic fields can propagate across space and time and that past events could influence other events everywhere else.

An example of this is shown by Lyall Watson in his book , " Lifetide: The Biology of Consciousness ", in which he describes what is now popularly called the Hundredth Monkey Principle . Watson found that after a group of monkeys learned a new behaviour , suddenly other monkeys on other islands with no possible " normal " means of communication learned that behaviour , too.

Barbara brennans exaustive work in this area gives a broad and highly detailed context for understanding unusually developed senses and perhaps a new understanding of other mechanisms in the universe whereby knowledege , feelings , thoughts and other objects in time and space , might travel across boundaries , for example between bird and tree ; between monkey and monkey or between human and human via a connectedness previously thought not to exist .

As Robert Anton Wilson so aptly put it , " any technology or science sufficiently far removed from ones own will be percieved as magic" , and much like the idea of new and emergent higher facilities which are explored to dramatic effect in the three X Men films , the idea of a new emerging higher state of consciousness is being discussed by integrated philosophers such as Ken Wilber , whereby the next stage of human evolution is not to be a physical innovation as our relative matereal comfort and sedantary lives suggest , but will be one of the mind.

Just as roaming homonids , with a culture which didn`t change one bit for millenia , were replaced by homo sapiens , with their art , religion , language etc , for whom culture now was so varied that it could be differentiated by an explosion of creativity , which is characterised by the highly individual designs of their hand axes and countless other artifacts which are found to be different from one valley to the next across the entire planet; so , the next leap of human development will perhaps be just as huge and qualatively different.Thesource42 17:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)



References


Barbara Brennan ex Nasa scientist http://www.barbarabrennan.com/ also her two text books " hands of light " , and " Light Emerging ".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Brennan

Physicist Dr. David Bohm "The Implicate Order "

Rupert Sheldrake , " A New Science Of Life ", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

Lyall Watson ," Lifetide : The Biology of Consciousness ". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyall_watson

Robert Anton Wilson , " Cosmic Trigger ", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.Wilson

Terence Mckenna , " True Hallucinations " , " Invisible Landscape ", and " Food of The Gods ", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_mckenna

Rene Descartes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes

David Horrobin , " The Madness Of Adam and Eve " .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horrobin

Ken Wilbur , http://www.kenwilber.com and http://wilber.shambhala.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilbur

A key idea in Wilber's philosophical approach is the holon, which came from the writings of Arthur Koestler.As a Mahayana Buddhist, he believes that reality is ultimately a nondual union of emptiness and form, with form being innately subject to development over time

The X Men , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men

Star Trek Next Generation In which Diana Troy is Ship`s Empath or Clairsentient. ( see , above the Robert Anton Wilson Quote ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Next_Generation

Emergence : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

"Perhaps the most elaborate recent definition of emergence was provided by Jeffrey Goldstein in the inaugural issue of Emergence.(Goldstein 1999) To Goldstein, emergence refers to "the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems."

Holism : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

[edit] blendedfrogs

the "attack" on the blendedfrogs family was not intended as such. I happen to BE SPC. David Mattocks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thelostfrog (talk • contribs) 13:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't see too many people attacking themselves on Wikipedia, usually it's directed at others... in any case, the article still qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. Dave6 talk 14:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Ohh, Thank You. How do I delete it? or is it already done?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thelostfrog (talk • contribs) 13:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
It's already been deleted -- the purpose of the tag is to request that an administrator delete the article (only administrators can delete). Dave6 talk 14:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal Fighter

Great thanks, good sir, for protecting our user pages!

XParadigm777x 01:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks

Of course. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auto insurance risk selection

Dave, Thanks for reverting the vandalism. I understand your concern that the article is a cut and paste from a patent application, but apart from that, in what sense is the article not an encyclopedia article? (For the record, I have no connection to this particular patent application)--Nowa 22:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding User:24.4.231.125

This guy seems to really hate you. I reverted some vandalism by him earlier today on your user page, as well as gave him a final warning. Just letting you know (as I saw you replying on the AfD page I made for Cop Movie :P). --RazorICEtalk 09:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts. Whatever vandalism of his I reverted must have been from another IP, since those userpage attacks seem to have come from nowhere. Dave6 talk 09:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the revert

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page twice now! I don't really know what this guy's problem is :( Misterkillboy 08:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MisterKillBoy is becoming a problem

I and other users are getting sick of MisterKillBoy coming along and without any consultation or discussion, deleting and 'improving' our valuable contributions. No, MisterKillBoy does not understand why I keep vandalising his user page, and I will continue to do so until he gets the hint. He's a nuisance with a retarded maturation process, lacking in the capacity for critical self analysis. He just don't get it!

I, as well as others, have tried to tell the world about the recent engagement of Ms Toni Pearen to her longtime boyfriend Will Osmond, and their moving in together into a recently acquired address on Scotland Island in NSW. MisterKillsBoys doesn't seem to want it to be true. Without any consultation or discussion at all he has continually meddled with the contribution, then took to repeatedly deleting it. This is the SOURCE of the problem. Fix MisterKillsBoys and there will be no impetus for vandalism. We love Wikipedia and our Toni Pearen, but MisterKillsBoys is a bloody nuisance. Could we please have MisterKillsBoys locked out of Toni Pearen? We think he's done his dash there quite frankly. 203.59.51.234 12:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it is he's doing, please stop vandalizing his user page, as that doesn't accomplish anything productive. That said, I looked over his edits to Toni Pearen. There are a total of four:
  • [1] This is a legitimate edit. The text he removed is discussion, which belongs on the talk page and not in the article itself.
  • [2] If the article is going to mention this engagement, we need a reliable source. Since I live in the USA, I have no idea if this engagement is real or not, but if it's just unverifiable celebrity gossip it needs to stay out of the article. If you can prove the engagement is real, feel free to add it back in, and cite your sources. But first, see my comments on WP:NPOV below.
  • [3] Another legitimate edit by MisterKillBoy. Please see WP:NPOV.
  • [4] Once again, "lives in sin" violates the WP:NPOV policy. Dave6 talk 20:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find the most troublesome edits were whilst not logged in as MisterKillsBoys, but simply as an IP. It doesn't take a genius... 203.59.51.234 20:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What IPs is he using? I don't see any in the history that fit his pattern. Are other articles involved in this? Dave6 talk 20:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Grr. Now I'm cross Dave6 as you're siding. You've taken KillerBoy's position that no such engagement has occurred, so the contribution's deletion is justified. Do a search for Toni Pearen, Will Osmond, Scotland Island. You'll find that there are numerous articles and photographs detailing their longterm relationship, their having recently moved in together into a property they have jointly acquired on Scotland Island, NSW. Ms Pearen talks in the media very recently about soon having children with Will, and just this season of her weekly 1-hour television show, she has begun to appear wearing an engagement ring. That's generally considered to signify engagement where I come from. It wasn't originally my contribution, though I believe it accurate as is evident by the facts, and I support it. May I feel free to add it back to the article? And when MisterKillsBoys comes along and smugly deletes it again without any discussion or consultation, will you not then warn him off this article. He's contributed absolutely nothing to it. He is not participating in the evolution of content, he merely perpetrates unwelcome edits and deletions. 203.59.51.234 21:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to 203.59.51.234

Apart from a revert of a personal attack against me, I have only edited the Toni Pearen article on three occasions:

  • [5] - the replacement of "lives with sin" with "reside" as I believe that the former phrase is not encyclopedic and carries a negative connotation.
  • [6] = a reversion of vandalism
  • [7] - the ultimate removal of her information concerning her engagement, primarily due the fact that this part of the article has been repeatedly vandalised in the past, and secondly, it is not referenced as outlined on the biography guidelines on the talk page.

I apologise for upsetting you for removing what you strongly believe to be a crucial piece of information from the article, and that I have not discussed my actions until now. However, instead of constantly ranting about my actions and vandalising both the article and my user page, you could have just reposted the information with verifiable references to it. For example, [8] features a brief mention of her engagement. In fact, as it seems you're an incredibly dedicated Toni Pearen fan, why not make a project of the article and expand it yourself? For example, there are no external links in the article itself, to start off you may want to include her IMDb entry, which is present on many actors' bio pages and are a valuable listing of their past works.

In the end your claims against me are unfounded (if you believe that I am such a problem to the further development of Wikipedia, I'd like to see your evidence), and I am frankly disturbed that you have decided to commit your energy to a campaign of muckraking rather than pursue the expansion of knowledge for the site. Misterkillboy 23:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Chronically first born, and clinically never wrong. You should work on that. You just can't see it. You made selfish mistakes and this is the result. You have nothing to contribute to the article. N o t h i n g. You have come along and thoughtlessly screwed with and stamped out some poor guy's evolving efforts without any hint of consideration. Don't expect the world to be pleased with you when you behave like that. The sick part is that you're not finished. The second anyone tries to add anything that you personally don't like, you'll be at it again. "I'm never wrong!" That's classic egocentric adolescent behaviour. I would recommend that as you clearly have nothing to contribute to the TP article, then you give it a miss. That's what a sensible adult would do. You sound very interested in seeing the stub class article expanded. How about backing right up and letting that happen. 203.59.51.234 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page. You got there before I even saw the vandalism! Professor Chaos 07:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/User_talk%7EDave6_Archive_01_f30c.html"