This is copied from the Science of Consciousness pages that have been deleted from other Wikipiedian's view, and what consensus is this, all the records of any dialogue have been deleted here so now it is a whole bunch of misleading comments. This reply also relates to these pages and cordial dialogue with solutions on the ways forward now deleted.   

 This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) DynEqMin (talk) Urgent: I need to have a record of the 'working document' I took the trouble to write (how do I do this (in fact it should have been moved to a Sandbox). Initially all the considerations that specific editors had made spurious comments on without any dialogue being of caring attention. These should all be placed back on this page. A dialogue was beginning with a first editor on this Main Page for that science, making an initial comment and me responding kindly with pragmatic reflections on how to proceed. I even Emailed 40 organisations that have masses of people to contribute the integrity of this subject to Wikipedia. Now they cannot even see the material. Further falsely dogmatic deliberations have swept it all the weeks of effort under the carpet, they obviously did not read or discuss among any experts the material with any care. The mention of SciCVN, as I explained, while it is a needed science and technology initiative, is just a generic name that is obviously a highly meaningful and indispensible construct. It is not promoting any faction, but like Wikipiedia it represents a generic support initiative, just like you would have for a 'bone fide' Genome related Project. So far none of the content I placed has been discussed, and those remarks addressed the pertinence of all that had been going on to do with this subject and B. Alan Wallace since Wiki started on Wallace as a victim of abuse. This is a good record and immediately understandable, is it not? The last conversation about this page was that there were yet no links inaugurated to other articles, and this I gave some sound and sane reflections on (only in agreement). Then there was another Tag which I reflected on about more sources, not that there was not any references quoted (there were multiple to informally begin with. I already thought of two primary sources that need to be included, but now the work has all gone. Why was this done? Obviously to hide all the religiously dogmatic bias words without substance of their own and to hide that they had not taken any efforts but to notice their own biases. I want what I have written to be available to an authentic panel of mediators at the highest level, and then to have discussions. I am not going to repeat anything here because you have wiped valuable material, to what would be the disgust of myriad scientists past and present. To conclude, wiping the material like this is greatly disruptive, and this has made me forgot a concluding final reflection, because there is nothing tangible to focus on. Oh yea, I remember, I was asked for this page, which disciplines can be related to this Wiki so that a truly interdisciplinary science perspective can be duly mapped. I commented that all those categories are in the articles. The cordial reply was OK I am sending this to the Science and Technology section (which is highly appropriate (but rather antagonistic in one sense of ignoring the very main disciplines which this relates to and where myriad help can be found: that is Contemplative Neuroscience, affective and positive psychology. These are the basic disciplines, and I want to add that to avoid bias conflicts such as this situation with this Wiki, even many so-called experts on mindfulness, do not have the empirical dialectics to even talk properly about the subject, that is why there are 'bone fide' primary organisation of dedication that contribute to the 'centrist philosophy' that actually configures the whole 'mindfulness introspective' in practice. 

 This is a small part of my reply, could anyone address these issues first. This complaint needs to be dealt with by the highest echelons of Wikipedia, and other organisations concerned, it was Wikipiedians who first brought up the issue of consensus and that is why I mentioned previously appropriate other organisation that these Wiki's affect. 

 RSVP Thank you DynEqMin (talk)  

 P.S. I have just looked at the B. Alan Wallace Wiki and the same thing as here has been done, I also wanted a record of those pages so someone please first tell me how I can get to those records, and the same calls I have made here, also is called for to apply to the above page on one of the most distinguished interdisciplinary scientists. We are now looking at a qualitative appraisal of Wiki editors so far in this, and it makes for some goo