User talk:Thesource42
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
well i am now packing my cyber bags and leaving . good luck to all and any who manage to find a constructive forward path to the truth . Thesource42 19:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- An earnest truth seeker needs a certain amount of stamina to be able to endure the duresses of Wikipedia in the present zeitgeist. __meco 08:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- -_- V-Man737 09:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
integral wiki
several other wikis and online magazines have since published my article ... including integral wikiThesource42 15:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
http://integralwiki.net/index.php?title=Clairsentience
Clairsentience
Hello! I have very heavily edited your contribution to the Clairsentience article, so you may want to take a look at all the changes. On a cursory note, what I've done is basically I went through and formatted the punctuation to English conventions (punctuation marks not having a space before them, but after them, excepting quotation marks, where there is no space between the enclosed text, as well as some understandably confusable conventions). Also I removed references to the editor (yourself, as in "I recommend this or that") and the article itself ("This article..."). Next, I sanded off a few words or phrases that seemed a little out of Wikipedia's neutral POV policy, mostly where researchers were overly praised, or where the article sounded a bit editorialized. I also took the references you listed and cited them according to Wikipedia procedures. I would highly recommend getting to know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines so that you can make more excellent contributions in the future; that way, no one will have to go through and mutilate your contributions - they'll be Wikipedia quality already! For now, props on the major contribution! V-Man737 02:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
new leaf
hi V man737..... thankyou heartily .. for doing a wiki job on my piece ..... the confusing thing ive found is that this wiki has some rather peculiar regulations and conventions with regards to style and flavour which other wikis do not .... but i think you are more fully emersed in the very particular culture and general aproach here , so i thank you again for translating my article into wiki speak ....... i think also i was given more time and space on other wikis to learn sourcing and the bits of code needed to make the article look right etc ..... wikipedia can be rather pressured ........ the bits of grammer i could have chasnged given a little patience but i am glad and very greatful you`ve spend the time weeding them out ........ i am very happy that personal refrences have been removed but agian certain editorial remarks are much more accepted in other wikis than here but i am happy that this version now qualify`s for wikpedialand and hopefully will stay here now as a landmark for anyone wanting to research extrasensory perception or the new pradigms of thinking breaking across many disciplines from philosophy to physics ......Thesource42 14:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- ^_^ I'm sure you'd be glad to know that your efforts are reciprocally appreciated. V-Man737 00:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect
I didn't redirect the article. What I said is that it probably should be. I'm happy that you're getting in there and editing and learning the ropes, but my personal opinion is that it should be redirected, and that is based on the idea that what's there is mostly about alternate states of consciousness and reality, and not really about the extrasensory clairsentience. I don't think there's enough published material to write an article just about clairsentience and that it should just be a subsection of ESP or another page. 90% of the clairsentience article was laying the groundwork for a state of reality where clairsentience could be real. That's fine, but it had very little had to do with clairsentience itself. The content about altered states of reality, etc. should probably go in an altered states of reality article instead of this particular article. I didn't, however, redirect it. --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 17:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- You wrote: "but why oh why did i do so much fulfilling all of the wikpedia guidlines for personal content , editting style , correct sourcing and referencing , wiki formatting etc.. but , agian it was trashed with no thought or care"
-
- That's Wikipedia, my friend. Only those that are a glutton for punishment and no appreciation stick around : ) I like the philosophy of Wikipedia, where it's information from a lot of different people expressed in a consensus. That's why I stick around. But you really have to suspend any thought of personal ownership of your writings, or that anyone might appreciate your contributions, in order to be a Wikipedia "editor". That's the sad part of it. That's why I both write here and keep a blog. Here I present facts. Over there I present opinions.
-
- Speaking of which, and this is just opinion, you mentioned "bohm , wilber" in your list of people who might support clairsentience or the kind of universe that can have clairsentience. Bohm and the Holographic Universe, definitely. I don't think Ken Wilber would support the idea, however. Wilber's model is of increasing holarchies. On the manifest physical level, he supports and agrees with traditional physics, which wouldn't include clairsentience. Maybe on the transpersonal and upper holarchies, but he would probably say that those levels are above the physical world. In fact, in one of the books I have around here (forget the title), he actually addresses Bohm's Holographic model and refers to it as flatland pantheism, something he doesn't agree with because it collapses the holarchy on which most of his theories are based. Where Bohm's model rejects current models of the universe, Wilber's includes but transcends them, never negating them.
- --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Last warning
This edit is disruptive to the talk page and uncivil (as it calls the creation of the redirect "childish" and once again accuses others of mistreating you).
This is your only warning. If you continue disruption and personal attacks, I will block you for a third time. Kafziel Talk 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Reverting
Please read Help:Reverting to learn how to properly restore old versions of articles. I've already restored the version of clairsentience from before the first IP address redirected it. Dave6 talk 20:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't see Kafziel's comment before I posted that -- as a reminder, edit warring is considered disruptive, so please be careful with my advice, and remember to discuss changes civilly on the talk page. Thanks. Dave6 talk 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I've seen enough
Since you are clearly unable to discuss things rationally and without insults or tantrums (as in this edit) I have now blocked you from editing Wikipedia indefinitely. I don't suppose it matters, since you've decided to quit anyway (for the third time); I'm just helping you make up your mind. Kafziel Talk 13:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
