Talk:Rufus Osgood Mason

Untitled
To Whom It May;

I had made "A Heading Error" composing this article.

His middle name is in-correct... It should be "Rufus Osgood Mason"

Please fix this heading correction.

Thanks;

Aedwardmoch (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC) A. Edward Moch Aedwardmoch (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You can "rename" the article by clicking on the move tab at the top of the page. --triwbe (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that whenever I bring up the subjects of Parapsycology, Psychical Research, and related association, I get the delete warnings. Please under the nature I bring up. These are "Legit" subjects in variation of articles that are supportive and confirming that already exist on "Wiki"... and composing an article on "Rufus Osgood Mason", is far more mainstream and real than the so-called newage buzzword quackery that has polluted these subjects. My interest in "The Real History" of these subjects, not a falsehood or sham. My personal involvement in these subjects are also real too, and my supportive measures help also you and "Wiki" get a better perspective, then the spectulative of some articles present on "Wiki". Some of the fact might seem "offbeat" about Dr. Mason... but they are real just the same. To be "limited" in scope, is to be limited and bias, due to micro-spection of this and other related subjects and articles here at "Wiki". I am here to correct and edit those errors in these subjects, as best in my expertize... excuse me for my shortcommings if I miss a bit or two. Aedwardmoch (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Aedwardmoch Aedwardmoch (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your edits is not the subject but, quoting from Verifiability


 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

Also I am afraid that your claim to expertise is non-usefull either. Wikipedia has a policy of no original research, Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. --triwbe (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your POV... but most, if not all on "Dr. Rufus Osgood Mason" have pre-existed for decades, so most of what I present is not original research material, but a viable compulation from which Dr. Mason's contributions "As a Forgotton Pioneer" over the years in the Research and Development of Parapsychology and Psychical Research, until rediscovered recently. This also applies also to the studies of Hypnotherapy, Psychology, and Mental Health per se. In my opinion, he speaks for himself as his own noted expert. Aedwardmoch (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Aedwardmoch Aedwardmoch (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not POV this is Wikepedia published policy. Read Verifiability especially the section Burden of evidence as I said and you will have much fewwer problems. --triwbe (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)