User talk:Ajoseph1

Talkback
~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anastasia !

Thanks a lot for posting a reply for me ! Grateful !

How can I produce stuff before Wikipedia, written about my original finding when world do not know me, and recognize my 'finding'? For the world to recognize my finding, there should be some pages ABOUT MY FINDING SOMEWHERE,like a WIKIPEDIA PAGE !

I have written to almost all reputed universities in the world about my finding. As I am an unknown researcher, especially not belonging to ACADEMIC field, no one will notice me and my finding, as you can readily understand. So, it is a catch 22 situation..

I know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and NOT a place for publishing someone's original work ! But, a page not created by me, but an impartial reference to my finding based on:

1) my book at Amazon.com 2) My Google blogger page with 6500 page views 3) This paper on Reason now peer-reviewed and supposed to have published by the Journal ' Advances in Psychology' ( by Council of innovative research) 4) My other papers published at two universities ( Kalyani University, MS University, Delhi Technical university. all in India, and my papers on 'democratic culture' peer-reviewed and presented at Olympia by International Society for Universal Dialogue ( isud) in 2012, and on 'Scientific explanation of reality'once again peer-reviewed and accepted for presentation by ISUD for their Romanian congress in 2014 etc.( see my profile attached to my Blogger page) also might help Wikipedia to write a page about my important finding about FACULTY OF REASON, a central finding in the Philosophy of mind field for future generations to add on to knowledge on Mind !

I have seen many such pages about many ordinary journalists and political leaders in Wikipedia, comparing, my contribution to the field of knowledge can not be something that could be missed by the world due to lack of acceptance and notice by the academic world..

talkback/ajoseph1Ajoseph1 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but as I have said before, Wikipedia is not a place which advertises people's discoveries to make them known, but rather an encyclopedia which covers already known discoveries. All of the subjects covered by Wikipedia have gained publicity outside of Wikipedia, and if they haven't, they do not belong here.


 * 1) Your book - non-independent (if it had been reviewed/mentioned by well-known reviewers or in other publications, that would be different)
 * 2) Your Google blogger page - also non-independent
 * 3) Council for Innovative Research paper - The fact that your work was published in this journal is helpful, but not substancial enough to grant you a Wikipedia article.
 * 4) Other papers published at two universities - also helpful but not notable enough in themselves.


 * Please have a read of WP:ACADEMICS to better understand what I mean. I have no wish to offend you, but please understand that Wikipedia has a standard which must be upheld. Otherwise it would lose its credibility all together. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anastasia,

Once again, great thanks for attending to my talk to you ! Grateful !

I fully realize the inevitability of what you said !

I was wondering, whether it would be appropriate, or I would say, the duty of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, OR AS SOME RESPONSIBLE ENTITY THAT REPRESENTS THE WORLD,at least to mention a sentence about my depicting 'faculty of reason as an internal sense-organ', at your regular page on REASON ? You can see, the existing page describes only a rudimentary idea about the great, mystery faculty ! Such a ONE LINE reference to the new 'development'on the subject would be most appropriate for Wikipedia, as otherwise, if I die soon, this new development would also die with me, losing the world its chance to further develop from where I have hinted.

You must realize that what I have proposed about faculty of reason is NOT a regular cup of tea for all and sundry to grasp..Only men with delicate sense of knowledge on how does man decide the exactness of his knowledge, whether it is about rocket science or on peeling of onions,can realize the relevance of my important finding. So, exposing the idea to the world at large is a necessity of the age. Kindly do not think that I am mad for publicity.... I have a philosophic minded person, and no desire at all for personal publicity> My concern is only about what I found on human faculty of Reason..

Hope I have not given the impression to you that I am not letting you alone on the subject ! warm regards,

Abraham J.Palakudy


 * Thanks for understanding :) Yes, if you think it a good idea to include some information about your finding on the reason page, you should start a discussion on Talk:Reason about it. Once you do that, I'll invite some editors who will help you reach consensus on what to include and what page to put it on. I think you misunderstood where to put the 04:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC) at the end of your post. It goes right where you would put your regular signature. Not in the edit summary bar :) Do you get what I mean? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)