User talk:LatencyRemixed/Archive

Welcome?
BTW, I have a question, you dropped a welcome on my talk page that says "I noticed you are known only as an IP address." Which template is that one? I normally use ~ which creates the welcome I just dropped on your talk page. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry about that, I confused you for somebody else. I didn't use a template, just plain text (check the source of this page). LatencyRemixed 02:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a template that you can do this with. You can find it at Welcome_template_table -- LatencyRemixed 02:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the welcome even if it was meant for someone else. :-)


 * On "just check the source" I don't think someone can tell after the fact if a template was used if it's done with "subst". For example, if I did  then someone can look at the source and they will see  but if I use  and someone looks at the source it's fully expanded and there's no indicator that it was from a template.


 * Also, it's better to use the templates rather than/copy pasting an old welcome as the templates get revised from time to time and also have multi-lingual support that you would miss if you copy/pasted. I had asked you what template you used as the section of text I asked you about had been revised on January 20th and I wondered if there was an old template around. Had you put  ~ on my talk page then I would have gotten the current version of the welcome text. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 07:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 15:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

but have been driven to ,

to think, i actually came back here in the hope that real scientific enquiry , curiosity , aspirit of exploration and real scholarly debate was respected and encouraged here at wikpedia , but i fear it is the dumb closed minds who sent galileo to his jail cell who are in charge .Thesource42 03:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

i was so hopeful at the beginning.

"Hi .... Latency Remixed....you sent my a welcome to wikpedia note for which i am very greatful..... i am having problems with my clairsentience article which i spend a good deal of time thinking about, reflecting upon and weeks of deliberation and a lifetimes worth of research.... it was created in response to criticism i got from NealParr to whom i am greatful as he motivated me to get my act together and put together a more congruent argument and article.... it is thoroughly referenced and evenly reasoned and balanced i would say ... but someone is randomly removing it completely without anycomment or discussion in an anonymouse raid like method.. ..... if you could help me in this regard i would be truly greatful , in good faith "

the following text is the last one i am sending after having removed some of nealparrs personal opinions and some of martinphi`s. if this issue is not resolved i shall consider wikpedia yet another place in the world where petty tyrants get their kicks out of being in control of that one square yard of carpet just like in any other office, playground or the territorial pissings of dogs .Thesource42 03:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

i have removed some of your personal opinions in the same spirit as you carelessly removed mine. again, if you wish to behave as grown ups and actually discuss the meat and potatoes of the issue as honourable men then i am more than happy to discuss the many fascinating and complex factors which arise when trying to understand other modes of reality or extra sensory experience. again, in good faith and with respect , come to me as grown ups and talk about the many references i have sourced for my article and why i have referenced each one and why each and every part of my argument is indispensible to the whole and i will again be entirely happy to discuss these in depth with you both. continue to remove my article without prior discussion and i shall consider you dogs and infants in a playground .Thesource42 03:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

on the administrators page he suggests a third party discuss the issue with the rogue editors and the writer of the article before official steps are taken .Thesource42 03:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to tell you, but if this user is vandalizing the article, you should report it to an administrator. LatencyRemixed 03:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC) how do i go about doing that. Thesource42 03:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

hello again latencyremixed i am not as you say enjoying it here at wikpedia and finding the level of interaction infantile. there are no reasonable discussions, no scholarly debate , only dogs pissing on lamp posts. if they would engage with me on the issues we could have a grown up debate about each point based on its relative merits. but like cowards they hide behind petty rulings and childish raids on my article .following is a piece of the text i sent in response to their petty tyrannies. Thesource42 03:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

hi nealparr... all of my sources are both reliable and implicitly scholarly. and all of them clearly referenced and if prperly followed up include many respected scholarly sourced matereal of their own. also all of my sources and references and the tiny bits of text inbetween , to quote the wikpedia guidlines themselves  are made to clarify and "To support an assertion made in an article. Sources used in this manner should be directly referenced for the point that is being supported. "Thesource42 03:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

if on the other hand, either yourself or martinphi wish to discuss each point i have made with me , i would be more than pleased to do so. otherwise i will continue to re paste my article and report you both to the apropriate authority at wikpedia central and make moves towards having you both removed from wikpedia for less than sholarly conduct in th manner of dogs pissing on lamp posts or infants in a playground. if on the other hand you have any honour or integrity you will argue or discuss the points with regards to this issue reasonably as adults based on their own merits. with respect and in good faith. Thesource42 03:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

hi, latency, iam still having problems with martinphi who continues to remove my article on clairsentience without any prior discussion or intelligent debate. i have sent him this .Thesource42 03:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC) hi martinphi ...Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it. Thesource42 03:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

all of my references are very highly respected and reliable sources..... all of them are given in an exaustive list in the reference section at the bottom .... in fact where possible i have given the wikpedia reference page html  where any intelligent or astute reader can follow up their references ... for example one can go to ken wilburs page and check his references .. or go to rupert sheldrakes page and check his research and his references. or to barbara brennan`s and check hers. etc. all of whom are highly respected in their own field and all of them cover the bases i have covered in far more depth if anyone chooses to follow it up. Thesource42 23:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Thesource42 00:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Thesource42 03:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

i will continue to put back my article which is thoroughly researched, referenced and reasonable balanced again and again and again until you give me a point by point discussion on the issues involved here .... if not i will begin proceedings to have you removed from wikpedia from unscholarly conduct Thesource42 00:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Thesource42 00:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Thesource42 03:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi .... Latency Remixed....you sent my a welcome to wikpedia note for which i am very greatful..... i am having problems with my clairsentience article which i spend a good deal of time thinking about, reflecting upon and weeks of deliberation and a lifetimes worth of research.... it was created in response to criticism i got from NealParr to whom i am greatful as he motivated me to get my act together and put together a more congruent argument and article.... it is thoroughly referenced and evenly reasoned and balanced i would say ... but someone is randomly removing it completely without anycomment or discussion in an anonymouse raid like method.. ..... if you could help me in this regard i would be truly greatful , in good faith, Thesource42 23:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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 15:11, 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 15:11, 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 15:11, 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 15:11, 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 15:11, 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 15:11, 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 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

i have pasted this in other places across wikpedia where i think thes issues are most in need of addressing. cheers for listening, loon. Thesource42 15:11, 12 February 2007 (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.

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 16:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

hi latency. some progress has been achieved i believe

any help with achieving the specifics of wiki formatting guidlines would be greatfully recieved.

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 15:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:AboutUs
Template:AboutUs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)