Jump to content

User talk:Noeticpositivism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Noeticpositivism (talk | contribs) at 14:20, 6 June 2012 (→‎Nomination of Noetic positivism for deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Noeticpositivism, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Metropolitan90

Thank you very much for the warm welcome. I'll be very glad for your help! Noeticpositivism (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Malcolma

Thanks for your attention and assistance! Noeticpositivism (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


For messages received in May.

1. As for “We”, - refers to scientific community (and its methods respectively).

2. Let me share a "little secret", when talking of positivism we primarily refer to it as the METHODOLOGY OF SCIENCE (whether one likes it or not).

3. I presume that those who want to delete this article, are connoisseurs in the field of positivism and the concept of “noetic”.

4. As far as the following statement is concerned: “This article appears to be written like an advertisement.” - can’t you see the difference between a scientifically-based statement (substantiated by categorical and mathematical facts), and a marketing text? (see № 3).

5. By the way, it took 30 years for people to recognize Einstein’s formula. I guess I still have some time...

6.Regarding links to publications and critics thereto, I have collected a few, they are as follows:

a) http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Passion-Noetic-Positivism-ebook/dp/B00669E8A2/

b) http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Passion-Noetic-Positivism-ebook/dp/B006ASJE6M/

c) http://www.vladkonce.com/

d) http://noeticpositivism.blogspot.com/

e) http://en.inforapid.org/index.php?search=Noetic%20positivism

f) http://gabixlerreviews-bookreadersheaven.blogspot.com/2011/03/review-one-of-us-by-vlad-k-once-reminds.html


I’d appreciate it if the moderators could go through those links, and if those comply with the requirements of Wiki, please locate them accordingly.

7.Due to a busy schedule, please write here: info@noeticpositivism.com should you have any questions.

I would like to express my gratitude to all who showed genuine interest and sincere care to the article about Noetic positivism.


P/S. As far as the concept of “noetic” and “positivism” are concerned, more information can be found here: http://noeticpositivism.com/introduction.html

Thus, it is possible to verify the compliance of the classical definition of “noetic” with the use of the same term in the articles published by Wiki. Do principles of accuracy and consistence apply to all articles?

Noeticpositivism (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Noetic positivism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Noetic positivism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noetic positivism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mcewan (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Excellent idea(considered for deletion). I would also suggest checking up the following articles "Noetic psychology", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute" etc., for compliance with scientific (common) sense according to the following criteria; 1. Subject matter of 2. Object of research 3. Target, methods etc.

If answers to these simple questions are not found, then let at least a basic explanation (definition)of what these sciences mean be presented to the world. And of course my “best wishes” to all moderators of the following articles "Noetic psychology" and "Noetic sciences". Looking forward to hearing explanations from them, why these quasi-sciences which do not have got any above mentioned criteria (1,2,3) can delude the readers of the Wikipedia? I think that having answered this question we will be able to understand why there are so many people willing to delete an article about a real new science - Noetic positivism. Or if the Times or the Nature haven’t written about something then this something does not exist in the world, does it? The editorial staff of these journals is the same people like you who search for internet links etc… And the ones like me develop science (without earning anything from it)!Noeticpositivism (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


..One can even argue with Eternity if there’s a weighty pretext, substantial argument, and resources of the required level… “The Sigma Passion” a science novel by Vlad K. Once

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Noeticpositivism&oldid=496278268"