User talk:Marisaande

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. No page with the title Marisa Anderson Psychic has ever existed. I assume you mean Marisa Anderson That page was recreated for a different person with the same name, but was also deleted, but I think I've got it sorted out. I deleted your article because
 * it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that you meet the notability guidelines. It is now Wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references, as defined in the link, or they will be deleted. Sources that are not acceptable include social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what you claim or interviewing your management. For example, I followed the first two links you gave, and the linked pages didn't even mention you, let alone support the claims of telepathy. I didn't check all the refs, because it's obvious from their titles that they are popular parapsychology books rather than scientific journals or mainstream national media, and can't really be used to support your controversial claims.
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. As would be expected from a vanity page, the article promotes your opinions and claims with no hint of scepticism or criticism, although you must be aware that there is no scientific basis for the powers you claim.
 * You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. Thank you for declaring your interest. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that you are notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest and WP:Autobiography

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer?
Hello James R, Thank you for such a quick response. Sadly I do recall from memory as I do not have a copy of the original article, that the links were not my idea..they were gathered and placed by the Wikipedia administrators at the time, so the referenced links I had nothing whatsoever to do with. I can argue the point that there is scientific basis to the abilities specified as I was part of two major funded research areas for Telekinesis, by Dr. Alex Imich Phd (now deceased)but I have a document stating I was in this research and Dr. Beverly Rubik, who viewed the research and was there. Dr. Guy Obolensky's work was in a different area of physics entirely. These were all funded and I was the part of the project that funding was initially received for. The other individual that can account other specialized abilities would be in Law enforcement. These depts that I was used within had criminal cold file cases, and their documentation states that my inclusion led to detailed information that led detectives to finalize the cases that led to a perpetrator and to prosecution and finality with my help toward solving the cases as there were no leads nor witnesses. Again the cases ended with finality for prosecution, one dept was led by Homicide Chief of Detectives Pete Viviano, now retired, the other was for the CID in the Caribbean, Roger Coutain, also retired, who now heads Security in BP Trinidad... both agencies of which I have documentation to support such work. I know you feel it is non provable but these people can account for the credibility as it is documented within their records. There is more.


 * Hi, note that I'm not necessarily watching your talk page, and it's just chance that I returned here. You can attract my attention by staring your message with, which will notify me. If you think the article is capable of being referenced to our standards, I can post the page temporarily in a user subpage for you to work on. I have to say, though, that given your conflict of interest and the controversial nature of such claims, you may have trouble finding adequate sources that are not generally supporting such phenomena.


 * Think about it, because I don't want you to spend more time on the article if it is likely to be deleted again. Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Reworking the article to a tighter content of data
Dear Jimfbleak, What you say in terms of another possible delete is true, so I will try to denote aspects that are credible and verifiable (within the proper channels) if they are searched and contacted. I can even supply the statements documented if need be. Your right..There are some of course that are not wishing to denote such collaborative efforts and not be "looked down" upon and or judged for their choices, regardless of the "impossible" results that made the choices a success for the case or the project. It is also a fact that I have been contacted by both scientists and Law enforcement agents and agencies without the need of the internet and search engines as they were non existent way back, so these individuals can find me regardless and have without such a public forum being necessary. So then I re-ask myself is this something that humans are in the need to know or are they still so jaded, confused, uninformed, innocent and just plain ignorant and naive because none of the foundations that have the results who work in these aspects make it public and is it also perhaps that humans are quite simply not as evolved as they need to be to comprehend what does exist in space and time, and what is and always has been "normal" not paranormal and that is precisely where these agencies are "Safe" using what is believed by many even in academia to be "impossible" with most remaining skeptical. This is quite admirable for the safety these agencies feel they need to continue the usefulness of these dimensional activities within this overall skeptical accepted and cloaked belief system of what virtually is quite realistic in both mathematical, and statistical as well as visual results and specifics of the very much more known universe. The public is again kept in the dark, so is it relevant they know the truth of what is a specific universe? I have much argued with myself if all Humans deserve to know more. Are all humans, evolved enough to handle the truth? What if they knew the power they truly have had. I am not certain if people are ready. I can argue it maybe a good thing to stay and work in the shadows, invisible to most people as they may not do well with the truth. In the meantime, I suppose it is my time to waste, to see if I can mesh together a page to fall somewhere in between the third person [skeptic], and the one who has seen and made a practiced point in the lab of what is not impossible and able to be redone over and over for legitimacy of tests, and within Wikipedia's aspects for being verifiable and not just for entertainment as most of the material on Wikipedia pages are. It is after all not a professional site, nor a scientific site and has no one working on articles that show their credentials or knowledge, nor even their real names show as all are pseudonym adopted administrator usernames. It still may be worth while to give people the truth of the reality's that do firmly exist. So on that aspect, if you could release the page for reformation, I will try to tackle it. There are the other noteworthy areas of written works accomplished by others and subsequent film works (noted in SAG) Ive been asked to take part in and radio live spots that were heard and done as well...all verifiable as these people still are living and working. Thank you for the time and advice you've offered Be well, marisaandeMarisaande (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

JimFBleak- Thank you for your assistance, I will await the sub section of the page for resubmission
Hello JimFBleak, I know you are busy. When you can, please send me the page you have existing for Marisa Anderson. I will rework the page with your advice, thank you so very much. Be well, Marisa Anderson Marisaande (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marisa Anderson (December 18)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marisa Anderson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister  talk  04:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)