Siddhi.powers
January 2008
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Li Hongzhi, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Li Hongzhi was changed by Siddhi.powers (c) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2008-01-11T14:07:13+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
External links
editHi -- I removed the links as they didnt qualify under WP:EL. MidgleyDJ (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again, basically any link needs to add something unique to the article that would not be incorporated if the article was already a featured article. It's better to use those websites as references -- referenced in the text (see: WP:CITE) -- than as external links. MidgleyDJ (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- No worries! Be sure to cite the references in text where relevant. 07:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I undid your March 15 edits because the claim in support of quantum consciousness is just a variant on the theme of water memory. The paper you cited has not undergone any form of peer review, and appears to be a pseudoscientific sales brochure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 10:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Please note that including studies on acupuncture and theories in a page that is not about acupuncture, particularly to prove or assert a specific point, is a violation of our policy on synthesizing sources to come to a novel conclusion. It also runs the risk of becoming a coatrack for unrelated issues. Your particular addition also placed this information directly in the lead of the article, when the lead is designed to summarize the body and not assert novel or detailed bits of information contained below. In addition, per WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, we should not use single studies to assert specific efficacy for treatments or otherwise aggregate the information. Until a review article is released on the topic, there is a distinct limit to what can be said. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Reread the EFT discussion page and refute the point made that the acupoints used in EFT were obtained directly from acupuncture. Siddhi.powers (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't need to, you are missing the point. This is not the EFT wiki, this is wikipedia. We are bound by our policies. One of them states that we can not take two ideas and link them together to reach a novel conclusion. Please read WP:SYNTH and tell me if I'm wrong. That is what you should be reading and paying attention to. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Reread the EFT discussion page and refute the point made that the acupoints used in EFT were obtained directly from acupuncture. Siddhi.powers (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
December 2015
edit
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. McSly (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)