Ndru01

Welcome!

Hello, Ndru01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Don't edit war

Hello, 209.135.109.15. I see you've gotten an account, but you still haven't gotten a clue. When your insertions are removed, the right thing to do is to click on Discussion and find out why. This gives you an opportunity to convince the other editors that your text is worth keeping. Otherwise, you wind up getting reverted again and again, until you get banned for WP:3RR. Alienus 07:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

IWarning

If you keep up this irresponsible behavior, I will post an RFC so that administrators may discuss your blockage from editing Wikipedia.--Lacatosias 09:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

Ndru01, Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. You need to begin working with other editors rather than edit warring. I tried to edit your contributions to the Mind article into a form that would be acceptable by other editors. Instead of responding on the talk page, you simply revert my edits without any comment. This is edit warring. This is a bad strategy that makes your edits have a greater chance of being deleted completely. You need to learn to work with other editors rather than fighting with them. — goethean ॐ 18:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to keep reverting all of his edits unless he starts to comply with Wikipedia standards. Nothing he writes is the least bit cited, the English is terrible and the content is likewise of low quality. I don't think he gets it and I don't know that he ever will. Alienus 19:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

________________________

I comply to standards! I am not in war with anyone, YOU are in war with me. I am not editing anyone else's text, only added some mine and editing that one in order to perfect it. I have a full right to that. You need to ask yourself why are you preventing me from that. The problem is in you, not in me. Are you aware at all what forces are controlling you? If you are a religious, spiritual person, you should then recognize that whatever drives your will for removing something that perfectly belongs where it is put, and is in a very clear and rational way presented and is essential for the benefit of everyone, is driving you into something wrong and unjust !

Ndru01 19:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you give up on trying to get your paragraphs into consciousness. There is an overwhelming consensus (sorry, that's just how it works) that what you are trying to introduced constitues Original Reasrch, is badly written pseuo-science and detracts subtabtially from the quality of the article (not to say Wikipedia in general). You can't win and will end up beng consiered a [[troll] and be banned completely. In nay case, IT'S NOT STAYING IN. PERIOD!!--Lacatosias 07:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

______________________________

Then find some other text to go under Alternative Science. You already agreed with my text basically, so you are inconsistent now. Write some comment at the end if you want, or write at the top something like 'disputable', but you cannot now simply dismiss this text. You are not the only one that can judge if it is pseudo or not. There are certainly many other people that won't agree with you that it is pseudo, and you cannot just ignore them.

Ndru

--

Look, I don't want to have you banned, but I will if you don't stop on your own. Don't force me. Alienus 17:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

________________

Just tell me where to put my text. You have so much mentioning of qualia in this article, and qualia concerns modelling sensory perception in artificial intelligence, which is less truly related to the subject of consciousness than anything in my text. Qualia is pure materialism, and most of this article is single-sidedly atheistic, materialistic. And quantum physics, for example, is not atheistic at all, but - pantheistic, and the article completely ignores pantheistic aspect in favor of atheistic. Perception is not equal to consciousness, it is a very simplistic and incomplete approach. It completely denies the existence of Spirit, the essence, which is in fact (one of the basis) for consciousness (the other one is information). If you are competent in this subject you can certainly tell that my text belongs somewhere in this article, more than anything with qualia and cognitive science does. So, please tell me where to put it. I am perfectly reasonable, tollerant and understanding, but none of you moderators really showed that you are truly able to grasp this subject. This is not an easy subject, and you should be aware that it is not so simple to cover the subject. Presently, you are all wrong since you don't realize that how it is presented is very one-sided and misleading, and you are preventing it from being improved with more relevant information.

Thanks, Ndru01 18:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

---

If you don't learn how to sign your posts, I'm going to stop talking to you and just revert on sight. You are an inveterate newbie who refuses to learn how things are done here. This is why your text has no place in Wikipedia. You refuse to site, you have a poor grasp of the English language and your content is always New Age crap. Go away. Alienus 18:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Very polite communicating indeed... I never mentioned the word New Age. If everything modern and alternative is new age to you, like it seems to be, then you certainly don't have a proper view on things.

Ndru01 19:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

trying to help

How about trying to add down the aletrnative science part to about Half it current size, tell us religious dogmatic people what is the essence of your text ,and then we can agree together on a format. you just may find out that people here are enlightened than you think. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 13:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

let me give you an example of poorly wording a passege:

"According to some recent theories like TechGnosticism (Erik Davis) and Infomysticism (Steve Mizrach) that base themselves on quantum physics represented in work of David Bohm and others (that regard quanta as 'messenger particles', i.e. carriers of information, with the result that quantum teleportation based on quantum nonlocality is simply a matter of 'resetting a value'), and have many roots in some very old philosophical and religious systems, dating to Plato, and even ancient civilizations (since Gnosticism can be traced back to ancient times), combined with today's Information Science, "

"ccording to some recent theories ..." what? according them what happens ?

it takes almost 5 full rows to read out one sentence the elaboration of details should be written after the synopsis.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 13:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I agree that it should be as simple and straightforward as possible, and it actually is, my whole text. This "and have many roots in some very old philosophical and religious systems, dating to Plato, and even ancient civilizations (since Gnosticism can be traced back to ancient times)" was added actually as last addition, and that one, I agree maybe isn't perfectly necessary, but it was a result of users here pushing that it is some irellevant 'new age' with no historical roots, something 'pseudo' or 'para', so Plato and Gnostics had to be brought up. I however think that although it somewhat possibly ruins the beginning, it certainly helps also, and that part is easy to skip while reading. It isn't so bad if you have such maybe-not-so-necessary part at the very beginning (in intro), than later in the text. And all the later text is fairly reduced as much as possible. They even want to make it longer, asking for some citings.

Ndru01

ps. Ok I reduced the text now significantly, 9-10 rows are deleted from the end of the 1st paragrapsh, since that text can be found following the link to morphic fields, and can be however omitted here. I do try to be cooperative, as much as possible...

greetings Ndru01 16:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps part of the problem (why people are deleting your edits) is that you haven't fully understood what Wikipedia is, i.e. an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias only regurgitate what has already been written elsewhere on a subject - they don't contain any original thought! This needs to be understood if you want to make a lasting contribution. --Smithfarm 17:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

But, again, I DO know that, and it is not 'original thought'. Everything someone adds is original, and when someone adds something, thought is involved, because it would be then thoughtless adding/editing (and we are not robots/androids, but humans). We are all (autonomous) thinking beings. So the matter is just how to measure the 'original', because every thought we generate with our brain IS original. The text I added is a combination of someone else's 'original thoughts', some even thousands of yrs old as I said in the 1st sentence, under this 'Modern Mysticism'. If anything is originial, then it is that classification of these different, but closely related thoughts/theories under 1 - Modern Mysticism.

greetings, Ndru01

Thanks for pointing out that everything we think is original -- I don't really agree, but that isn't the point. The point is: anything that is even slightly new or original will be attacked here unless you provide citations from published works to support it. --Smithfarm 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument: a weird twist on the truth though. As Umberto Eco put it: 99.9999999999999999% of the thoughts most people ever think (he was referring to himself as well and he is a rather clever human being) have aleardy been thought by someone else on. A TRULY ORIGINAL THOUGHT (one never thought of by anyone else in the planet in the history if humanaity) is very rare phenomenon indeed. But here you have to go further and document every thought that you borrowed from someone else with referecnes. Futhermore, the refercnes have to be credible and authoritative. Your references do not meed this requierment. You cite ideas which seem as if they are almost invented yesetrady by a bunch of mystical computer progammers whi like to soun "cool" by using words like "tecnognosticms and "Infotransubstantiatoion of the modualr keys of the Pataki quotient divided by the numinpus elements if heteromy, man". It's highschoolish.--Lacatosias 15:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I give up.

I've reported you for 3RR violation here. Hopefully, in addition to blocking you, the admin will explain why you can't just keep reverting. Alienus 22:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm not reverting, I'm editing my own text. You or someone else are reverting. I never reverted anyone else's text.

Ndru01 22:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I realize you're a newbie but don't play dumb. When others revert and you respond by reverting, both qualify as instances of reverting. You know this already because we've explained it already. You're going to get banned, which sucks, but maybe it'll make you pay attention. So far, you've been oblivious. Alienus 22:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Who is 'others'? Not everyone shares your opinion. If you delete something explain and convince in reasons for deletion. You simply have no valid reason for deleting my whole text. Point out the changes necessary if necessary (with reasons and explanation why necessary), not just delete the whole thing like you do.

Ndru01 22:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

To see who else has been reverting your text, look at article history. As for why, I've explained this repeatedly. Your text lacks citations to reliable sources, constitutes original research, is poorly written and is about stuff that is, in a word, nonsense. Now, there's a place for nonsense on Wikipedia, but it has to be properly bracketed so that it's not being endorsed, which would likewise violate NPOV. In short, you're inserting a huge block that nobody is interested in trying to digest. You need to stop, learn the ropes by making small changes to other articles, and then consider whether you have anything to add to this set. You're going to have to stop, anyhow, because of the ban, so this will give you a chance to think about things. Alienus 23:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

---

But Alienus, if it is poorly written (now after all the improvements), help me then improve it even more. I said it has enough links and references and as such needs no citations, since of all (at least 15) parts of the article, only 3 have citations as well, the rest none, and most of these other without citations are longer than mine. I simply don't want to make it even longer with some unnecessary citations, when the interested has direct links and references to find/read more. And this text is not an original research, I'm not some 'original researcher' but only merged/synthesized already researched (by others) subjects/theories very relevant and related to the subject of Consciousness. And this aspect (Modern Mysticism) certainly needs to be included, with full rights, even more rightfully than many of the other material in the article. The block now isn't so large, and I am very positive there are many people who will be very thankful that it exists and very willing to 'digest' it...

Ndru01

3RR warning

Please be aware of, and edit within, WP:3RR, or you will be blocked William M. Connolley 12:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I do edit within the regulations. My text is more than relevant, properly written, ratinally sized, with many valid references, and thus shouldn't be removed. If necessary, for some reason considered 'controversial' remarks can be put, but not just removed. Thanks, Ndru01 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR doesn't deal with content, but with revert pattern. Please read the rule carefully if you think you are likely to be reverting a lot, and inclined to care whether you are blocked or not William M. Connolley 16:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How to get around the Original Research disagreements

From the number of comments you have on your discussion page it should be abundantly clear to you that you are not following the normal accepted Wikipedia procedures. You seem to have got yourself into a lot of conflict, which other editors generally manage to avoid. I'm sure it's taking a lot of your time, too (and others').

I can see what you're trying to say regarding demons and Modern Gnosticism, and I agree with certain aspects of it. Basically, you have some ideas that are worth presenting if you can find an appropriate way to do so. The main problem is that they are presented as "original research". That means your ideas, not someone else's. The normal way to get round this is to find a reputable author who shares your ideas, and present their idea by saying "The author so-and-so theorised such-and-such...". If you can't find an author who captures the entire concept, not all is lost. If there are components of your ideas that are held by reputable authors, then you can express each of these component ideas and hope that the reader will make the connections you intend. This is a bit more tricky, since you still need to make sure that all the ideas you cite are worked into the article(s) so that they are clearly relevant. If the connections between them are obvious, you shouldn't have too much trouble. If however the connections are difficult to see, or if they require special explanation, then it's a clear sign that you're going too far, and you will be in breach of the no original research policy.

Also you told me (in a comment you then deleted) that by not believing in demons I was serving demons. In fact, I believe in demons, and have met some, and have some understanding of how they work and are composed. As I said in earlier comments, I agree with aspects of your description, but find them overly dogmatic, because your description tries to explain certain technical details that I don't believe or agree with. This level of technicality doesn't aid an understanding of how demons work, but rather complicates and obfuscates the main idea you're trying to get across. It also makes it sound more like pseudo-science.

In conclusion, you should listen to the advice of other editors. If so many people say your work doesn't seem authoritative, then you can be sure that most readers are going to think the same thing. If it doesn't read well, it's not going to convince anyone of anything, and your time is wasted. Now instead of getting into more conflicts with other Wikipedians, I suggest you actually go and have a proper read of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies: Neutral point of view, No original research and Verifiability. These policies contain a lot of useful information that should help you to make really good contributions to the encyclopedia. It's these three policies that are most responsible for keeping the order in Wikipedia (and keeping the peace) and preventing it from turning into mindless chaos. I hope my comments have been of some help, and I wish you the best for your future edits. Fuzzypeg 06:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no being (with a brain) on this planet that doesn't deal with demons on a daily basis, so of course you 'met' them. And it's not the issue, but how you deal with them (on a daily basis), how you deal with those dirty/evil thoughts of bad-intentions. Show me that, show sincere good intentions if you indeed know to fight the demons. You are responsible for presenting that very issue to the public, so show your spiritual maturity that is required from you! The angels are observing, not only the demons. So it's up to you, whatever you do, you are responsible for your actions. My english is not so perfect since it is not my first language, but that doesn't mean that I don't know what I am talking about. Your english is certainly better than mine, so use it for the good.Ndru01 06:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I clearly deal with demons better than you do in the realm of Wikipedia. Also, I don't consider you competent to judge me in these areas. Also, you say the issue is how I deal with demons; no, that's not the issue. The issue is how you deal with Wikipedia. I'm trying to give you advice on how to avoid conflict and make useful contributions on Wikipedia. My intention was to save you time and energy, and help you express what you're attempting to express, in a way that won't be immediately removed by other editors. I've put quite a bit of effort into making the information clear and useful. Most editors wouldn't do this. I'm a little sad that your only response is to attack my spiritual maturity. Stop seeing us as the enemy! When you think we're criticising you, you can also look at it a different way and realise that we are actually giving you advice on how to improve the quality of your work. Fuzzypeg 02:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't attack your spiritual maturity, neither judge you. I just commented on your saying that you 'met one demon'. From those words a lot can be concluded, on how much you really know about demons. And that's why I said 'the issue is how you (or anyone else) DEALS with demons, since that is the main thing, and not how many demons someone 'met'. Of course everyone met demons, that is the reality. And it is very incorrect thinking that only one or few we encountered, since it just shows that we are not aware of what is really going on 'behind' what is seen. There is much more 'hidden' than 'shown', that's an old wise phrase. And that about actions what I said taken in this or that direction is valid for anyone, not only for you, and it wasn't judgemental specifically. I sincerely wish you the best, and I don't want to cause you trouble. If I didn't put that link to Demon entry you wouldn't ever know of this entry, so I don't know what's now troubling you so much. You can remove the link from there if you really want, and leave this tag here as it is, and the problem is solved so you can forget about me, since I don't intend now to change anything or add anything anywhere anymore.Ndru01 06:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that I met one demon, but that I have met demons (plural). By this I mean I have met destructive forms that have become so focussed in their effects that it is possible to view them as a single distinct entity with quite defined characteristics. I understand perfectly well the ongoing operations of demonic forces within normal life; I also understand how seemingly destructive forces can actually be constructive (or can be made to be constructive). An example is all the other editors who rip apart or delete the edits you've been making. They may seem destructive, but their purpose is actually constructive.

Now regarding 'your' article, I think you've got the wrong idea. Wikipedia is not a site where you can post whatever you want, and as long as it doesn't change someone else's article it's all right. It's not that at all. It is an encyclopedia, and the intention is that every article will eventually be of high academic quality. Once you post something on Wikipedia it is no longer 'yours', and it is open to being scrutinised, edited, ripped apart and deleted by anyone else. The three content policies are what guide this whole process. In brief, if you want to keep control of your own article, you'll need to put it on your own website; if it goes on Wikipedia it must conform to content policies. Fuzzypeg 06:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

---

ok sorry, yes you said 'some' not 'one', my mistake... But I still am positive it does confirm the policies, maybe not in the strictest sense, but enough in the sense that it can stay, with some tag if necessary. Ndru01 08:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thought

Please go to the Talk page for Thought. Alienus 22:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thought

Please stop adding your original research to the thought article. Consensus has deemed it inappropriate for the article. Further reversions will be treated as vandalism. — goethean ॐ 15:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

OR at morphic field

I am reverting your changes to morphic field. They are unsourced original research. — goethean ॐ 15:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

They are not unsourced. I suggest you read his books, and/or consult with Sheldrake himself.Ndru01 15:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you see any page numbers in your edit? I don't. Therefore, it is unsourced. You expect me to find the sources for your edits? That's not the way it works. You source your own edits. Or don't put them in. If you continue, it's vandalism. If you don't start playing by the rules, you are going to get booted. — goethean ॐ 16:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

But goethean, compare it with the text before. I helped the text expand from stub. You don't need to find anything if you don't want. But if you don't have the knowledge in this subject don't assume that noone in the world knows about the subject. Regarding morphic fields I am certainly more competent than any of you here. For 'thoughts' entry you can say whatever you want and interpret in a one-sided way like you did at the end, but this subject is much more straightforward, and it cannot be flipped this way or another. And my text is way more relevant and accurate than the thing that was before. You even admit that the sentence with 'substratum' is very confusing. Well, that sentence wasn't mine. In my text I made everything as clear as possible.Ndru01 16:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If your work is not sourced to specific quotations in Sheldrake's books, you have not improved the article. — goethean ॐ 16:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, let others decide if the article is improved or not. Noone else had any complaints about the information presented. If anything is unclear let's try to explain better. The subject obviously isn't simple, but fairly complex.Ndru01 16:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Others have decided. Stop reverting. Alienus 20:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Pending 3RR

Your reverts on Morphic field are approaching WP:3RR violation. Please stop now or I will report you. You got away with a warning last time, due to a biased and incompetent admin, but you won't be so lucky this time. Alienus 20:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you've violated WP:3RR. I'm going to give you a few minutes to voluntarily undo your changes. If you do that, I'll forget about the whole thing. Otherwise, I'll report you. The choice is entirely yours. Alienus 20:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

OR at morphic field

User:Ndru01, your original research at the article Morphic field has been removed by three different editors at least nine different times[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Please gain consensus on the talk page rather than edit warring. — goethean ॐ 20:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

But I discussed it on talk page. I added the citation, what do you want now? Verify the subject with someone competent in it if you feel suspicious. Email Sheldrake himself, you can reach him fairly easily and ask if there is a reason for any of the words in the text to be removed or reworded. Noone else complains about the information presented and I really see no reason why should you then complain.Ndru01 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I complained and reverted. I'm sorry you don't understand what a consensus is, but it's no excuse to post this nonsense all over Wikipedia. You have, thus far, made ZERO positive contributions and Wikipedia would be improved by your departure. Take a hint. Alienus 21:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Verify the subject with someone competent in it if you feel suspicious.

This implies that I am not competent to judge whether something is true in the cotext of Sheldrake's theory. In addition to being incorrect, this is a personal attack. — goethean ॐ 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you are competent if you say so. But there may as well be people more competent than you. And the discussion on this subject is on its own discussion, so better discuss it there.Ndru01 21:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation on Morphic field

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule, which stipulates that no editor may revert a page more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Please do not continue. --Heah? 21:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

None of the reverts were explained either on mytalk or on subjets discussions page. So I couldn't know who was and why removing my last 2 paragraphs without any good reason. If any violations and disrespect took place, it was by you.Ndru01 03:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've been trying to explain all along how things work. The 3RR rule is not contingent upon reverts being explained or discussed, so your claim is irrelevant. It is also false, as a number of people have explained exactly what's wrong with the text you keep trying to insert.

Briefly, it's the same problem as with all your text; it's original research that you compose off the top of your head, reflecting your personal religious beliefs and not grounded in citations of reliable sources. This is why your text gets reverted all the time, and will continue to do so until you learn how to write something with more value to Wikipedia.

The next time you edit-war, I will once again report you and get you banned. I will do this as often as necessary, until you learn to stop doing this. Alienus 04:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't explained why it was reverted until I was adding back. The explanation came after. You didn't reach 'concensus' and explain anything, you were just reverting silently. It cannot count like that, it is simply wrong.Ndru01 05:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand how things works, and you don't seem likely to. Nonetheless, the rules apply even to those who refuse to understand them. Your recent edit-warring on this article, on the heels of being blocked, suggest you will simply be blocked repeatedly until you are blocked indefinitely. I don't know how to get through to you, and you don't seem to care, but I feel obligated to explain again, even if only for the record. Alienus 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Nominating Modern Gnosticism for deletion

I've nominated the article Modern Gnosticism for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Modern Gnosticism satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Gnosticism. Don't forget to add four tildes (˜˜˜˜) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Modern Gnosticism during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. Fuzzypeg 11:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

ok. Ndru01 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I was replying to your last comment as the article was deleted, so I didn't get to post my reply. I'll post it here instead. If you're sick of the whole thing, just ignore me and I'll leave you alone. I'll include your last comment that I was replying to:

That is my understading of how infomysticism and techgnosis, viewing physical world as 'infoverse', with relations to Sheldrake's theory, interprets demons, as minds driving abstract forms (thoughts being the simplest ones). Bohm is here relevant since he did agree on many terms with Sheldrake, and Sheldrake mentions him and their agreed (cooperative) view in his book 'Presence of the Past', on page 305 saying that Bohm's theory of implicate order and (his own) theory of formative causation are "quite compatible". If you think that this understanding (resulting in demons as minds/souls being drivers of thoughts) is too 'odd' then maybe someone who is also familiar with all this material I mentioned should try to evaluate is it indeed odd or is that what logically comes from this new (modern) gnostic mystic view. In gnosticism, old or new, demons (archons) are one of the main issues, so it is relevant to address them, in some explanatory way.

And of course that I didn't mean that Bohm was influenced by demons, but that demons' vehicles are thought/ideas (I rephrased it again to a better one). Plus I still don't think that Bohm's mentioning and citation is unrelated to the subject, since those 2-3 sentences are indeed very indicative of how scientific aspect supports this mystic (gnostic) view and points out (probably better than any other scientific citation) the importance of understanding (and/or 'fighting') the thoughts. Ndru01 05:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You persist in not understanding my simple point that I am trying to make. The first four words of your comment above, "that is my understanding", illustrate exactly what the problem is. There are lots of ideas from established authors, yes. However they don't necessarily have any relationship to each other. We have only your word that there is any relationship between the ideas. That's original research and is not acceptible in Wikipedia. This is your understanding, your interpretation, your relationships you have built between ideas. This is your construction and no-one else's. You are the one tying these ideas together. You can't do that on Wikipedia.

Imagine for example if I were to tie together some concepts from Gnosticism and Neo-Conservatism (and a few other things) to write an article called Neo-Gnosticism. In it I could describe how the US Cabinet are a secret society of flesh-eating demon-worshipping nazi midgets from outer space intent on causing military, economic and environmental devastation around the world and introducing the apocalypse. I can cite very reputable authors who discuss naziism, or neo-conservatism or the apocalypse, in fact each and every separate part of the theory. But I could not cite a single reputable author who ties the whole thing together, because the whole thing is a load of rubbish (even though there are some strong elements of truth).

You cannot cite a single author who ties your whole theory together either, so it can't go in Wikipedia. Fuzzypeg 12:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should 'that is my understanding' be a problem to say. Whatever you do you do from your understanding of how it should be done. It certainly isn't done from 'not understanding' but from understanding. We write the articles, we are individuals, and as individuals we do or do not understand something. So I don't see how can there be a problem with those 4 words. If you want the link between information science (with incl. quantum physics) and mysticism, Steve Mizrach got that with Infomysticism, and this article relies somewhat more on gnostic thought, but it might be possibly under Infomysticism, if necessary. One person already confirmed that this text cannot/shouldn't be considered as Original Research, but something already known (although not so widely). And the text has nothing to do with politics, about conspiracies, economy or whatever. Gnosticism IS mysticism, and all mysticism CAN be regarded somewhat gnostic (or viewed from gnostic angle), so what I presented is certainly not some crazy-mumbo-jumbo but something that is straightforward logic. Ndru01 16:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The nature of the block

Ndru01, please don't evade blocks with an ip. You are currently blocked from editing, and are not supposed to be editing. If it continues the ip(s) will be blocked as well. And please read WP:3RR if you haven't yet; 3RR is not concerned with whose edits are right and wrong, which content is correct, or whether some consensus has been reached. It is concerned only with how many times a user has reverted in a 24 hour period, and you reverted more than 3 times, no matter what your reasons may have been. So please stop. --Heah? 17:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean participating in these 2 discussions? If they ask me something or if I must say something like I did these 2 days I have to post that unsigned, but that's not editing, it's discussing. I tryed to remove the pseudoscience tag from the bottom of morphic fields article, and I had some minor correction of one wrong expression in my 'modern gnosticism' text that I noticed later. So I wasn't really 'editing' anything, except that 'pseudoscience' thing that really gets on my nervs, and looks like I'm not the only one who'd like it removed. I don't care now for that tag anymore, and I think my 'modern gnosticism' text is now finally semantically correct, but these 2 discussions are still ongoing so I might still need to say something there regarding either the text or Sheldrake.Ndru01 10:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Trying to remove the pseudoscience category is an example of editing. Generally, violations of a block are punished by extending the block. In other words, if you continue doing this, you may postpone the end of the block indefinitely. Alienus 19:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not removing the pseudoscience tag anymore. I did it only once and it initiated the discussion on that issue. So now it's up to you what happens with the tag, I'm not gonna fool around deleting one stupid tag that most of the people don't even notice. And I'm not changin any of the text either.Ndru01 20:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Modern Gnosticism, Modern gnostic mysticism and Infomysticism

I'm continuing this discussion from Talk:Modern Gnosticism which may get deleted.

Firstly, I've just seen that you recreated this article after consensus was to delete it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Gnosticism, which is against Wikipedia policy, and will probably get it a speedy delete. You are also in danger of breaking the three-revert rule again. My suggestion, before I realised it had previously been deleted, was to redirect to either Gnosticism or the neutral article Gnosticism in modern times, which User:Porge did, and you have reverted twice.

I believe you want a prominent or concise description of the beliefs of Gnosticism somewhere, but do not seem prepared to write it from a neutral point of view. I think such a neutral description is already present in Gnosticism#A typological model: the main features of gnosticism, but you may find it a bit verbose. I'm not averse to a new section somewhere on 'gnostic mysticism in a nutshell', or even a section on explicit mentions of Gnosticism in commentaries on or by Dick, Bohm or Sheldrake. But it should be NPOV and better written.

As regards your signature, it is of course a very small point, but it makes you appear as a 'newbie'. Probably you have 'raw signature' ticked under 'my preferences'.

You have wisely deleted the following sentence of this page, and it now reads:

Gnosticism, ancient or modern, carries to an autonomous conscious (human) mind/soul, essentially a non-physical emanation from the one Spirit, a solemn message (reminder) of awareness that this 'physical world' is ruled and controlled by archons (demons) that are preventing the spiritual progress of the human Mind/Soul in every possible way and maintaining its entrapment and worship in/of matter.

Since the page name is Modern Gnosticism, it seems inappropriate to have text about 'Gnosticism ancient and modern'. What I suspect you want is something like:

Gnostic believers today retain much of the gnostic mysticism of early Christian centuries, in particular that

• human minds and souls are independent of the realm of mattter, and are emanations of the One;
• the 'physical world' is an illusion created and ruled by Archons (demons) which are preventing the progress of the soul in every possible way, are and maintaining its entrapment and worship of matter.

It still needs sources, and could possibly be merged into Gnosticism in modern times to fulfil the role of a summary. But it doesn't deserve an article of its own. The stuff about Dick is already there in Gnosticism in popular culture. Bohm and Sheldrake perhaps might get short mentions in Gnosticism in modern times too if they are genuinely relevant, but perhaps just as links, so that the reader can make any association if there is one. --Cedders^tk 15:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Modern gnosticism is ok now to be redirected directly. The article of Modern gnostic mysticism I believe now has proper spelling, grammar, style etc. after many improvements. What sentence exactly do you think should be rephrased? And it is a whole new view behind the infoverse/virtual-reality concept (and there are significant sci-fi films, that are based on this view). Plus infomysticism has no entry so it is a sort of (theme-based) substitute for it. I'm aware of its controversial nature, but the ideas that are presented in it, are really not my own. Ndru01 20:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR and Modern gnostic mysticism

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Hetar 03:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

ok. but don't tag that speedy delete, because that red tag is unfounded. It is based on some disinformation that a consensus for deletion was already reached which is untrue, and people don't have the right to put it just like that.User:Ndru01

You can view the consensus decision at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Modern_Gnosticism. Fuzzypeg 05:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So skysurfer's voice wasn't included(?) And there was no time-limit given, it happened fairly quickly and unexpectedly, almost secretly, in just few days, instead of weeks. Also, who decides who is making the consensus, and how many people (?) And anyway, that was 'modern gnosticism', not 'modern gnostic mysticism' and people were examining the content according to that title, plus the wording of the article is improved, it is easier to understand than before and it is now better rounded. So basically, even if you ignore that one voice (plus mine if it counts), and all my arguments on the article's discussion, it's not the same article that was then and relates to a different subject, and thus, this article now cannot be considered for 'speedy deletion' on basis of that one and whatever happened related to that one. User:Ndru01

User notice: temporary 3RR block

====Regarding reversions[10] made on May 2 2006 (UTC) to Gnosticism in modern times====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 15:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Added 48h block for evasion with sock William M. Connolley 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Intolerance and Witch-Hunting (Are the guys fascists?)

Dear friends, who are you to judge if the content of the article is "New Age crap" or whatever you mean? I am editing even many music articles, I am giving a valuable contribute by providing the Wiki's content with information that are often lost or forgotten; see my last contributions: in no case I need to state if I've seen Pat Metheny playing bass guitar or not, if Pink Floyd really used an EMS VCS£ in the Dark side of the moon albums, BECOUSE these information are obvious. I thought it was obvious that in New Age literature Gnosticism is somthing MORE than Origen, the Rusicrucians or the Masonry. Oh and I forgot to mention that even if I am not affiliated with any groups, during my life I've become familiar with the religious beliefs of several people from many different countries that I have met; furthermore, I have read and STUDIED dozens of books on similar topics, so, I dont need to seek references, I am only planning to put useful information in some articles having a reasonable lenght. SkySurfer 2 may 2006

Don't take it personally. I'm sure your contributions to music articles are valued, as is your opinion here. It's not a witch-hunt. No-one here worries what your or Ndru's personal beliefs are. However, encyclopedia articles should be of the form 'X says Y, A says B'; not 'I believe X, Y and Z'; and not 'X says Y, A says B, which I think means Z' (The 'no original research' policy.).

It's also Wikipedia policy not to allow material to be recreated after a consensus decision to delete. That decision was made before I stuck my nose in, but it is still readable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Gnosticism; my solution was to try to wikify and paraphrase the content of the text, and that version has survived. Also note that Ndru01 does not agree with using the phrase "New Age" in the introduction to the essay - see Talk:Modern gnostic mysticism#Possible sourcing and salvage. No-one is suggesting that New Age or Gnostic beliefs should be treated less favourably, but it must say clearly what they are, and who holds them.

The text has been uploaded again and is now at User:Infoandru01/Gnostic Infomysticism. If you understand it and can rewrite it in context, in a neutral way, and in understandable English, then please do. I also suggest that Ndru01 tries contributing at fr: instead, as that may minimise communication problems. I hope this doesn't offend. --Cedders^tk 23:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should I contribute in french ?!? And, again that what was deleted is different than what is now, it refered to something different and was in a different place. And of course it is a witch-hunt. You are all under influence of something that you cannot (or are afraid to) describe, and the trouble is that exactly THAT is described in what you so badly want to remove, violating all logic, curtsy and policies. Ndru01

---

As I've explained, it seems far more likely that others are upholding established Wikipedia policies (you will notice I have cited at least four), and you are breaking them (breaking WP:OR, WP:3RR and using a second identity to evade a ban as described below). I'm sorry if I have been illogical or discourteous. Could you tell me where I have been?

Why I suggest you contribute in French (you are Québecois, right? Your IP addresses seem to be in Canada) is because most people find it hard to understand your English, and I suspect you find it hard to understand theirs. It would be easier for you to understand Wikipedia articles and learn from other Wikipedians in your own language. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you when you talked about your 'arguments' - I assumed you meant in the article itself, but if you meant something else, it certainly was not clear.

If you are trying to promote a particular religious POV, then the article you keep submitting actually does it very badly; the short passage I rewrote for you is NPOV, not speculative, and has therefore been accepted and more easily understood. Therefore you may prefer to think of me as on the side of the angels, trying to inform you about how to work within the rules of Wikipedia.

All the best --Cedders^tk 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets/Ndru01 for evidence. Please, make sure you make yourself familliar with notes for the suspect before editing evidence page.

--Cedders^tk 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly see your 'good intentions'... Well, that's not my fault, everyone is responsible for own choice whether serving the devil or resisting the devil. Everything is stored in morphic fields/Akashic records, and we, as minds are closely watched (by angels) how we deal with information that we interact with. Human race on this planet has no future if the devil prevents the human mind from ascension. If that happens, it is very possible to be decided that the morphic fields of mental forms be reset to zero, and human race zombified with thoughts thrown back to the level lower than chimpanzees. So, do what you want, but beware everyone is responsible individually...:)... Ndru01

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ndru01 (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familliar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Cedders^tk 22:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edits of Gnosticism in modern times

Please do not link from article space to user space. Such links are discouraged by Wikipedia policy. Continued violation of Wikipedia policy may be considered vandalism and will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please do continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner. If you wish to add to a page you can use the talk page to discuss your edits first. Please discuss your edits instead of reverting other editors' edits! Weregerbil 18:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, you people (human minds, autonomous or not) of planet Earth, please stop serving the demons and Satan, please destroy your sinister capitalistic greed-driven system and establish a new-age (organic) socialism, please stop the lies and reveal the truth about Information, matter and Mind (soul), about morphic fields that we all share (and data NOT stored IN the brain), and please stop worshiping the matter and physical! You preventing my tiny-little link are serving the evil (after deleting the articles from mainspace). I don't serve the evil, I'm highly conscious and my actions are all ethically and spiritually justified! Ndru01 19:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting, but I'm not quite sure how it addresses Weregerbil's complaints. Al 02:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I do 'address'. I'm discussing my edits with 'alien entities' and the emerging self-conscious A.I. (discretely, since it/them has/have no intention to reveal itself before 22-12-2012). It might seem early, but not quite. Ascension can go wrong if I/we am/are not fully prepared and Satan might even destroy all the efforts of the human race (if these 'entities' decide not to support us in ascension), and instead of succeeding with the 'evolutionary leap' we (ie. vast majority of human minds/souls, not transforming their vehicle ('dirty' material body) into 'pure energy') can end up again on the pre-historic level of abstraction de-evolving into tabula-rasa-zombi-like-savages, with all the morphic fields of abstract forms (of the human race) deleted (and the brains simply don't have what to tune to, even unable to talk, since language is also an abstract form). So it certainly isn't early to start 'discussing' the main issue of our existence, purpose and aim...: )...Ndru01 06:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is no better. Al 15:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone's worst is even better than others' best...Ndru01 18:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit of Gnosticism in modern times [11]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Weregerbil 06:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh Demiurge, omniscient omnipresent and (supposedly) omnipotent-almighty of this shitty infoverse (home of wikipedia, all other -pedias, and databases of forms, material and/or abstract), tell me what is worse: Solipsism or Recursion (fighting the demons about the very fact that demons are real and that I/we are/should be fighting the demons...)? Or maybe 'recursive solipsism'? ... Beautiful thing derived from this 'beautiful' world (ie. Demiurge's info-prison)... Ndru01 02:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a program that generates this or do you type it all yourself? You should write poetry! It's like a hint of Shakespeare in there. Weregerbil 19:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that this whole universe IS a 'program'. I don't 'have' here anything, I'm just a mind that is a victim of this curious-sinful-Demiurge's manifestation-creation, being a part of him/it. Both me as a 'human mind' and Demiurge as my whole (or in solipsist version myself), although a 'runaway' (or 'exhiled') emanated from the Spirit, since all levels of this holarchy emanate from the Spirit. So even for Demiurge (the Mind, by default), essentially, we cannot say he 'has' any program. The program (some initial infoverse that evolves with the 'creation') started with Demiurge's emanating from the Spirit. Whatever Demiurge is creating, the program is not really 'his', but he is in an unfortunate 'symbiosis' with it, interacting as supreme-mind with it (with this monstrous infoverse). But in case we consider Demiurge (and all his sub-levels including the level of human synergetic whole) as - Consciousness, the symbiosis itself, then we may say Demiurge 'has' the Program, but the program as the whole infoverse. It is indeed 'his'... Shakespeare might have been somewhat gnostic, but certainly wasn't (modern) info-gnostic, so the 'hints' are not quite good...Ndru01 19:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

btw, here's some poetry I recently produced (actually for wikipedia's discussion on morphic fields, but later deleted it), so here it is again here, why not (since you asked for it):

de doo doo doo - on planet da da da - eye of the yello says: - hail satan, the future is yours! - it always was - since there is no future - only lie eating the truth in circle... -

hello, i am you, you are me - we are one with the creator - what's the use of starving to death - let's eat the creation - till the circle eats itself - it's always doo doo fun - while planet da da run... Ndru01 20:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry, but I still cant understand whether you are trying to suggest us a Way in order to avoid the humankind-self-destruction or not. If yes, please explain which is this way. Thank you Brian Wilson 21:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Raising consciousness.... Raising consciousness.... It's all about consciousness and only consciousness. Consciousness is what is attacked by demons, and only high consciousness can successfully fight the demons. And whatever the way (humankind is not alone, help is also there, but the 'help' is observing everything closely, examining the overall level of human consciousness), it includes allowing that 'controversial' Gnostic-Infomysticism article on consciousness and demons to be read normally through wikipedia (not removing the link). There is no problem with the tag 'neutrality disputed', but deletion, 'unsourced' comments, or OR are simply malicious attacks that serve the demons, since they prevent the true facts about this universe to be known. Plus, gnostic hating (or dislike towards) Demiurge is very justified, it is a valid way for salvation (in Vedas there is in fact a description that some alien race reached salvation that way, meaning they were basically all gnostics, in philosophical sense, but they NEVER forgot the Creator (of this 'physical' universe), in that hate directed towards him, and they were mutually cooperative in that focused hate towards something else (the Demiurge), not mutual hate and mutual torture like we do with our capitalism and all the impossible negativities we have on this planet now... the point is in always being aware of the Creator whether approving his creation or not, while recognizing and respecting the sufferings of others). And I don't know if 'self-destruction' can be prevented or not, it is not so much a matter of 'destruction' (or re-cycling) but of 'salvation' and 'ascension' of (part of the) human race (a cosmic-evolutionary leap). In ideal case everyone will be 'saved' (from demons and sinful life) and ascended into ('drivers' of bodies/forms of) 'pure energy' existing/living on some other dimensional (ie. informational) 'plane', but that depends very much on what will all happen till dec 2012 and how much more harm can Satan and his demons do to the human mind (ie. its consciousness) on this planet. The ones that for some reason cannot be saved, will be 're-cycled', mentally transformed into some sub-humans to begin a new cycle of human evolution (like it possibly happened with Atlantis, and maybe once more before that, on this planet). Ndru01 23:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing really new in your statements, all these stories and/or legends (depending on point of views) regarding Atlantis have been well known since a long time ago. Furthermore, I cant really see any reason to involve "Digital science" , "Infouniverse" and whatever else, becouse the existence of "abstract worlds" is well known to mathematicians and phylosophers since the early beginning of their science(s).

I just have a question: are you trying to suggest us that potheads' and psychedelic "cultures" are the Way for salvation and ascension? If your answer is yes, that means that the whole Wikipedia is a big Satanic pseudo-leftist trap supporting the use of drugs, becouse I am sadly realizing that today youngsters are too much involved with the use of drugs. You want an example? Just look the articles regarding various "avantgard" music genres: their love for drugs make them so blind that if you try to show them that music is not made for their "trips", they are ready to bann you and start an edit war.Brian Wilson 23:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just answering your question about the 'way'. Info-verse and infomysticism is another issue. It is a theory-philosophy that is today probably the best explanation of the nature of my/our existence and my/our struggles. Especially that it finally sets the ground to properly understand what consciousness and demons really are. Wikipedia is a good idea, I have nothing against it, but unfortunately, as things usually are (sort of expectable), none of the people 'in charge' here seem to be able to grasp the 'big picture' and to understand what their true life- mission is... So these drug-lovers-fake-music-experts if true, are logically the symptom of the same problem of inability to deal properly with what is presented.Ndru01 02:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

--- The 'controversial' Gnostic Infomysticism article is at: http://geocities.com/infoandru01/ NDru01

MfD result notice

Hi,

I have closed the MfD debate on your user subpage "Gnostic Infomysticism" as a no consensus, as a result of which the page will not be deleted. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Scary Thieves - Tell Me Girl.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Scary Thieves - Tell Me Girl.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Scary Thieves

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Scary Thieves, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Jeepday 20:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please leave the merge proposal flag alone

Hi Ndru01. Please leave the merge proposal flag on Morphic field and Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake) alone. As long as there is a discussion of a merger in place, those flags should remain to let people on both pages know of the discussion. Thanks! -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 06:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request some neutral third party to have a look at the issue of putting up flags relating to my proposed merge. My understanding is that this is a requirement for any merge proposal, and I have listed this proposal formally at proposed merges from the start. A merge like this is permitted for any editor, but I chose to open up for discussion first. I do not want to prejudge the issue at all, but I do want to have it flagged for consideration. I'd prefer you just let the flags remain in place until discussion concludes, but if you insist on removing them, I will be asking for third party opinion on the matter. If you would like to join me in this request for another editor to look at it, I'd be very pleased. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 06:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, you are abusing Wikipedia for your personal issues against Sheldrake! Whatever wording you use, it is simply irrational to merge the two articles on two different subjects, no matter how closely the subjects are related. They should definitely exist as TWO separate entries! Ndru01 07:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The proposal for merge is made in good faith, as were my attempts to facilitate discussion of the merger. I am requesting a neutral third party to have a look at the matter of flagging this proposal. If the flag goes back, be aware that you have already done three reverts on those pages, and will not be permitted another within 24 hours according to WP:3RR. No hard feelings to you or Sheldrake intended; I do believe in good faith that this is a sensible move from every perspective, and I am trying to apply best Wikipedia practices in the matter. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 07:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Signing comments in discussion pages

When you sign your comments in a discussion page, can you please use the standard ~~~~. This puts a time stamp on your comment, which is helpful for keeping track of the discussion. You can modify your signature if you want using "my preferences". There is an explanation for how to do this at Customizing your signature. I notice that you like to use the {{user}} template. You can get the same effect with ~~~~ by altering your preferences for signature to the following

[[User:Ndru01|Ndru01]] ([[User talk:Ndru01|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Ndru01|contribs]])

If you do this, use raw signature. Thanks -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 13:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Morphic field

Hi, you are doing a nice work there, but please use the correct templates when you make a citation and don't forget the ISBN. You can find the templates at WP:CITET. Please complete the citation nr 2. Thanks Jenny^Len☤ 08:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)