The Wikibook || Odd comment

It isn’t “just an idea”, it’s just that nobody seems to have reported it as working! I know a possible reason, but I don’t want to say; you can work it out yourself by looking at the technique carefully.

As far as I can see, there aren’t many new ideas around right now. I’m beginning to feel everybody here who gives advice repeat themselves, which is partly what the wikibook attempts to solve - if everybody can add, it’ll have everybody’s advice, hopefully with the best wording too!

Fri Mar 05, 2004 4:00 pm:

By the way, I never meant it to be only for newbies. It’s meant to be complete. I don’t mind infection0 calling it “Indispensible for newbies”, though :smile:. If it was indispensible then, what is it now? :grin:

Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:53 pm:

I’m going to put a full list of topics on the wikibook soon. If anybody wants to beat me to it… well, your choice! :smile:

Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:01 pm:

OK, I’m getting quite pissed off now, as nobody’s helping. So I’m copying the description which I previously wrote here in hope to attract people again.

Well, so far, about 24 pages have been written (yes, that’s right, 24!) and 20 pages of handy material sit in the Appendixes section. But it needs proofreading, checking, adding, and re-organising.

Second link in my signature. And sorry if that sounds nasty.

In other news, I’m going to add that “traffic-light” system I mentioned earlier.

:user: (delete this post)

:user: (delete this post)

:user: (delete this post)

Recently I have found that more people than I thought have read the wikibook :grin: and now I’de like to do a quick poll on who’s read it, how they’de rate it, and what needs to be added.

In other news, I did add the traffic-light system. I need to update the “forum topic” lists. I also used a bit of wiki magic :wizard: :user: to fix up the design on the Using page really nicely (compare to the old version). The LD FAQ in Appendixes was fixed up very nicely. The “Interpreting Dreams” section is coming along nicely. A lovely banner and conclusion were added at the end of LD Using. And that’s about it.

The main page of the Lucid dreaming wikibook recieved a total of 1118 pageviews last month. The other pages:

LD Introduction - 387
LD Dream Recall - 375
LD Induction Techniques - 709
LD Using - 229
LD Glossary - 89
LD Appendices - 153
LD Further Reading - 71

Pretty good, even if a lot of it was me :smile:

Edit: this month is looking good.

I’m getting really pissed off now (again), but not because nobody is contributing: there have been plenty of anonymous contributions recently and a fourth author just joined yesterday!

No, I’m pissed off because there’s a vote and I’m on the losing side. So I’de like to ask more people to vote, and hopefully things might swing to my point-of-view. :smile:

The vote is over!

I recommend you read the “LILD discussion” section too before voting. It won’t take long!

I don’t meanto add to your frustration. But I didn’t understand the link you put in your post. I read through the LILD topic and it seemed quite erratic. But prehaps I was skimming through it to fast.

What vote? I didn’t even see something to do with voting on the page.

I don’t understand this either. Is this the vote? Is this an argument, or just to contadictor statments near each other?

Sorry to piss you off further, but what is the topic about? It’s like reading the middle of an article.

Wow, how did you get your wikibook to be visitedthat much? Did you advertise.

I was also confused first, but you can just edit the page and add your name. Well, that’s how I did it.

To vote, you just add your username to the end of one of those last two lines.
In the first paragraph, I gave two links to help people understand what I’m talking about: there’s a LILD section in the wikibook, but I haven’t found any anecdotes of it working (second link). I know why it doesn’t work, too (first link). So I want to remove it.

tapir, who originally added LILD to the book, posted below the voting why he thinks it should stay. Then I replied (my reply is indented). The discussion continues further down.

Any questions?

PS No, I didn’t advertise. Except for various signatures…

I’ve added a picture to the intro section which shows the sleeping stages in a clearer form. I hope this is OK, and that it loads fast enough.

Oh yeah, that image needs to be public domain or GPL. Elsewise whap off it has to go. In fact, I just checked the site and it’s copyright. I took it off. Sorry.

An idiot changed the wikibook contents (Lucid dreams=>wanking dreams).

Yeah… took a while (14 hours I think) for somebody to change it back. But never mind, there are far more positive edits than negative ones! :smile:

There’s more somewhere, but I think I deleted those PMs in a cleanup operation. Pretty good collection here, anyway.

I’ve made a few edits here and there. Hope you don’t mind. I’ve signed myself in the author section so you should be able to figure out my username.

The paragraph on Food and drink in the section on induction techniques of the wikibook says: ‘Ayahuasca cacti’ Ayahuasca is a brew of psychoactive plants but does not contain cacti to my knowledge. Maybe someone forgot to press the enter key so the words didn’t separate.

And why is there so little warning about the dangers of the other psychoactive sustances? It olny says ‘Not recommended!’…

Sorry for the slow reply.

I do not know anything about these substances neither do I wish to research them. The wikibook already tells you to research those further. If you wish you can put up further warning yourself.

Wikibooks is now set up “interlanguage”. The new address is https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Lucid_Dreaming.

The older addresses https://wikibooks.org/wiki/Lucid_Dreaming and https://wikibooks.org/wiki/Lucid_dreaming will continue to work.

I’ve seen in many posts on the forum there that a lot of people don’t know anything about the little coloured dots everybody see when closing ones eyes, which are called phosphenes.
They confuse them with hypnagogic imagery. It will be good to put a definition in the wikibook.

Um… OK, I’m going to be really nasty in this post. Forgive.

Yeah, it really would be good, wouldn’t it? Why not go and do it yourself? All you need to do is go and type “define:phosphenes” at Google, and rephrase the result before adding it.

There are no results. Anyway: I know nothing about phosphenes. I’ve added them anyway.