User talk:Immortal Discoveries

To anybody coming here, about the thinking pages

You have to explain to me why and how I have more than 5 senses, that's literally what I am, when I think of a car I see it and hear it and see getting in it and see far away places....the senses are linked too...and they get triggered out of neurons by us with choice or if no choice~

No, we don't have to explain that to you. If you are not here to build an encyclopedia only through summarizing mainstream academic sources with no addition, alternation, elaboration, or unbalancing, you should leave. This is not a forum or chat room for you to pretend to be a philosopher on, this is an encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do because it's incredibly wrong.

Are you here to summarize mainstream academic sources to build the encyclopedia, or are you here to argue for your personal beliefs about senses and thought? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize there is 5 senses you sense why you's no do that is there a 6 sense called thinking thoughts and ideas I don't think so?...the longstanding problem I notice everywhere, is that a consciousness cannot be a huge bunch of particles can it? Is the brain of balls one particle or just 5 centrillion? I'm a field, I'm ttrying to help get it out there that I am a field and have 5 senses being wobbles in me the 1 partle being a field. I have the soup-blueprints how to form a consciousness particle too, and transfer, and test it is still there when doing so, because I'v figured out too that I must find all immortality ways for everyone fast and already did...

Welcome!

Hello, Immortal Discoveries, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Thought. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thought, Immortality

Please add usefull info, not this nonsense. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. Please see WP:NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guideline you should look at

"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, additions to talk pages should be about improving the article within the guidelines, not voicing one's opinion on the subject matter.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.
Minor edits are those that add or remove little content, and mainly consists of undoing undeniable vandalism or fixing grammar, spelling, or formatting errors.

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User not here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you.

In other words: I have alerted the administrators that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. It is in your best interest to respond *there*, not here, and demonstrate that you're capable and willing to work on the encyclopedia and aren't just here to waste our time. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea to respond at WP:ANI to say that you are willing to change your editing behavior, rather than being flippant. Your responses risk being blocked from editing for being tendentious and disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]