Heh, infection0 has changed his signature again so that it’s even more flattering. Thank you ever so much.
Consider changing to the new address… it makes the page look a bit simpler and load a bit faster, without the redirect to en.wikibooks.org and the “Redirected from ‘Lucid dreaming’” text.
wasn’t that hard…
phos·phene Pronunciation Key (fsfn)
n.
A sensation of light caused by excitation of the retina by mechanical or electrical means rather than by light, as when the eyeballs are pressed through closed lids.Complicated. You mean my eyelids have batteries in them? 
So is that also what happens whenever you close your eyes and don’t press on them?
probably since the eyelids do rest on the eyeballs, just very lightly so to some degree i would guess yes.
but overall i know as mush about it as you lol.
although i remember in junior school i used to press on them and image i was in a space fighter n shit because i got the effect of flying through weird tunnels and space. Go figure. There some info you neither wanted nor need
I just discovered that there were Wikipedia and Wikibooks. 
What are the difference between them ?
Grr… I swear I posted a reply.
Again: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, while Wikibooks is a repository of books (esp textbooks).
The text of the Lucid Dreaming wikibook would not be allowed in Wikipedia, as it is not encyclopedic. However, it’s bookish, so it’s in Wikibooks. 
Please r3m0t, don’t beat me ! 
I promise i’ll don’t do it again !
I meant that it was deleted.
perfect smilie!
I was thinking about the old dreamviews site: It had beautiful pictures on the side, from the Myst game.
Wouldn’t it be cool if the wikibook could be sort of spiced up with colours, pictures, etc? From Myst, or LOOM, or something.
Any ideas appreciated.
I wouldn’t want registration at ld4all to be a requirement for replying. Therefore, please reply on the wikibooks page Talk:Lucid Dreaming. I’m posting this message their too.
I’m going to wax lyrical a bit in this post, because I’m just in that sort of mood.
Wahey, constructed criticism! 
What’s hard to understand about “realizing that it’s a dream because you’re flying”? OK, maybe it should be “realizing you’re in a dream” (I’ll do that soon), but apart from that? What is a “true newbie”? Did you realise that the book is meant to be read Introduction to Using first, and then used as a reference? How much longer would the text be if it were written for one?
You also highlighted the words “concentrate on/focus on/set your intention”. The word “intention” is used in the normal sense here, derived from “intend”. Setting your intention is like setting your goals, targets, or mind. What’s hard to understand in it? Looking it up would probably say that it is your goal; what you wish to do.
You also highlighted the words “visualise” and “mantra”. A mantra is something you repeat. Visualise is to imagine visually. Again, what is hard here?
The words are only really used slightly off their dictionary definition. (I say this without check a dictionary! 
) People can handle that. For example, I wrote immediately after quoting you, “Wahey, constructed criticism!” What I meant was constructive criticism. But you understood… I hope. 
This might be a bit rude, but how old are you and do you know the “general” meaning of these words? Sorry if you do. I just don’t understand how it isn’t friendly.
“I think it should be step by step, with detailed instructions, in a truly n00b friendly way”. I don’t like step-by-step in general. I don’t know why. I remember milod789 commenting on the book Lucid Dreaming in 30 Days. Surely that book is as structured as can be! The main criticisms were that it actually spent more time on astral projection etc, and that it was inflexible. (See “AARRGGHH!!” in the Playground for why I can’t check this now.) Step-by-step instructions either turn into massive flow diagrams, or become inflexible. At the moment, it’s pretty simple: Read Introduction, do Dream Recall, do Reality Checks + learn some other Induction Techniques, do as many Using things as you can. 
If you have problems, check the relevant chapter. (I’m thinking about Using here.)
I think it’s important to take account of the myriad of variations on techniques that exist, for example the different styles of MILD mantra. That’s hard to capture in an instruction list or a flow diagram. 
“It should focus on eather LD n00b training or high level things to do”. Why? The famed inclusionist message goes: Wiki is not paper! There is no size limit of wikibooks: only the reader’s patience. In a well-written (perhaps more light-hearted) and well-structured book, the reader should not grow impatient or find it hard to find stuff.
Also: I never really intended the wikibook to be a “newbie guide”. The fact that it is still called one by many members of the forum (in signatures and in posts) shows that it still hasn’t succeeded its goal.
PS “n00b” annoys me when not used sarcastically; it is requested, although not required, to not use it in future posts.
Woo, among my longest posts!
I’m still in the lyrical mood.
At the end of my last post, the impression might have been given (passive ) that I didn’t want the wikibook to be newbie friendly somehow. I didn’t mean that.
Here, I’m not interested in what LD4all is, I’m interested in what the wikibook is not. Going through each item:
Informs: I think it does, in more detail than the LD4all site excluding forum.
Entertains: I don’t know, the Induction Techniques section gets pretty dry; possibly adding images would help. Not smileys though, I don’t know why. On LD4all the site has plenty of beautiful artwork but on the forum it’s up to the individual posters. I suppose most are upbeat and entertaining .
Motivators: If you mean people, the wikibook won’t provide that, and I don’t mind. If you mean reasons, they’re right there in the Introduction section. (If some are missing, add them or tell me). I wouldn’t want it to read like a self-help book where there are promises throughout the book. I don’t want to sing praises of lucid dreaming. I don’t want to say it’s great when lucid nightmares can happen. So it doesn’t end up very motivating!
To make a suggestion is to criticise. “You should add more info on MILD” <=> “There is not enough info on MILD”. Don’t let that discourage you from making criticism, constructive or no. Actually, non-constructive criticism sucks. 
Finally: It is not “my” work in authorship nor in ownership. (Wow, I just love that sentence I wrote! ) I didn’t write all of it (I don’t think I wrote most of it) and I certainly don’t own it. And that is cool and fun 
.
I don’t really see anything wrong with the wiki book. Keep in mind it is a work in progress. You can say that this section or that section is weak or confusing. You can moan and groan about it or you could try and add to it. I am probably not one to lecture on that since I have not yet added anything to it but, I want to point out it is not fair to give r3m0t a hard time about it either.
milod789: I don’t think anybody has been. It can be fixed without them taking the time to edit it, but not if they don’t put up exactly what it is that’s not so great about the current version.
You can help if you like 
.
My replies were too long? I defended the wikibook too… religiously?
Gah, no replying.
Still none!
More news… somebody move the dream interpretation bit to wikipedia (Dream interpretation) so I can say happily that every section is yellow or green!
(Except CAT. I’ll have to fix that.)
I’m not sure if this was brought before, but there is a link to the alt.dreams.lucid FAQ (in the appendices), also known as Lars’ Lucid Dreaming FAQ. It seems to me that the FAQ doesn’t have reliable information, but some unchecked methods info and things that are simply not true - they’re all mentioned as fact, though.
(That’d be enough to scare skeptic like me from lucid dreaming forever. 
)
I don’t think this FAQ should be included in the wiki, at least not in the appendices section and without any disclaimer about its reliability.
How do you decide what is true information and what is false. Even in the example you provided if you added a disclaimer to it you would just be trading one opinion for another.
I’ve known for a long time that FAQ had shitty techniques nobody has ever used, but I didn’t consider it an issue. The shared dreaming thing, though, might be worth a disclaimer.
pav, if you change the link in your signature to https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Lucid_Dreaming (note the en. and the capitals for LD) it’ll load marginally faster.
Oh look, you changed it without me noticing! 
That much I think we can definitely agree on. As far as faq’s go it does kind of suck. Perhaps you could have a ranking system for each link. Or add a reader reviews section under each link like they have for books on amazon.com.