|This is TheRingess's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to TheRingess.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10|
Please explain why you reverted my changes on the Kundalini page
Hi. I do not understand why your reverted my changes on the Kundalini page . OK, the addition to the "psychiatry" section may have been poorly worded but the idea I expressed was representative of the opinion of a part of the psychotherapeutical community that confronts to the effects of kundalini, that is it may actually lead to positive changes in one's personality - as opposed to a mere illness; a valid point of view that is not represented in the section. As for the book I referenced, I do not wish to "promote" it, since I am not the author and in no way affiliated to her; I have justified the inclusion in my comment, did you read it? This is one modern reference written by a psychotherapist specialist of the subject and very conversant with the topic, widely accepted as useful for both patients and professionals - it surely qualifies as good reference for this article? One problem I have with the current "Further reading" section is that it lists either old or spirituality books that do not necessarilly reflect all viewpoints on the topic; the reference I added balance that a bit. Tell me, why is this worse than listing Cyndy Dale's book? As for the dangling words, I just have noticed them and it s*ck*d, I am sorry. Syl 11:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Ringess . . I'm just learning how to use wikipedia, and have discovered that you have removed my edits. I thought perhaps I was not posting correctly. So, I understand that this is your task, and thank you for clarifying the procedures. Please educate me a little more about what's acceptable for comment. Do I understand correctly that if something has been published it's acceptable to reference it? what constitutes simple referencing as opposed to editorial comment on the reference itself?
My reasons for editing out some of these comments are because their objectivity and veracity are in question. To indicate a balanced opinion or rebuttal of these accusations, how would that be done ? . . and again, must it have been published somewhere that can be annotated?
I did leave in place sentences that indicate there were general criticisms about sexual activities. I simply want to see an accurate record, and didn't enjoy seeing the page ending on unproven and anonymous allegations of rape.
Regarding your removal of the link to nityanandatradition.org from the Swami Shankarananda article. I have reviewed the external links policy, can you please elaborate on why you removed the link in that case? Yogidude (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)