User talk:Research recommendation

Welcome

Hello, Research recommendation! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Verbal chat 14:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Quantum mysticism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please justify what makes this book worthy of a further reading entry (why is it notable, etc) on the talk page and then wait for comment. Thanks. Verbal chat 14:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is the first time I am using Wiki to edit. My apologies for the confusion as I learn how it works. This book is worthy of the futher reading category because it sites and researches the work of many of the authors mentioned in this category at wiki for quantum mechanics and mysticism, as I have read on the subject. It is also listed at the University of California Berkley Student Store as well as Amazon and all the major online retailers. Here is the book description:

"In an interview in 1989 at the Nils Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, David Bohm spoke on his theory of wholeness and the implicate order. The conversation centered around a new worldview that is developing in part of the Western world, one that places more focus on wholeness and process than analysis of separate parts. Bohm explained the basics of the theory of relativity and its more revolutionary offspring, quantum theory. Either theory, if carried out to its extreme, violates every concept on which we base our understanding of reality. Both challenge our notions of our world and ourselves. He cited evidence from both theories that support a new paradigm of a more interrelated, fluid, and less absolute basis of existence, one in which mind is an active participant. Information contributes fundamentally to the qualities of substance.

The early quantum physicists like Nils Bohr were ridiculed by those who could not comprehend the majesty of their attempts to explain our reality. The debunker inductive reasoning which imposes direct inferential theory upon nature has caused a setback that science has yet to overcome. Despite their stated fear of religion these theories are in fact doing what the Dark Ages did to sincere seekers of truth. It was the dawning of a New Age which revived ancient Chaos Science. Our whole computerized creative and productive world is largely a function of these atom-mysticists."

I hope I am using the talk page correctly here. I had somewhat of difficult time navigating my way around.

Research recommendation (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied your comment above to the appropriate talk page here. Please do not keep re-adding the book until other editors agree with the addition. Thanks. Verbal chat 15:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The appropriate talk page you referred me to was not in English however, but I will look for updates here in my talk page. Research recommendation (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange typo on my part, sorry. Here is the correct link (I've also updated the above link) - Talk:Quantum_mysticism#Further_reading. Verbal chat 15:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think I see how to access it now - through the 'discussion' tab at the top of the page.

Regarding your comments on Talk:Quantum mysticism: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Verbal chat 16:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the objectional comments? (there is one comment that contained the word 'idiot' - was there more? My recent additions do not contain personal attacks as far as I can tell...but I'm not exactly sure what the entire objection is). Research recommendation (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the "sounds like you don't know much" comment. It's better to keep civil, even if you're only joking - they don't always work in text. By the way, please put you sig (~~~~) at the end of your comment, not on a new line, and indent all paragraphs of your comments with the appropriate number of colons (one for first reply to a post, two for second, three for ...). Thanks, Verbal chat 18:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TY (my appologies, I am still having trouble learning how to post). Research recommendation (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]