| Revision as of 10:47, 15 February 2008 editMccready (talk | contribs)3,705 edits →Removal of POV tag← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:39, 16 February 2008 edit undoMartinphi (talk | contribs)12,452 edits ←Replaced page with '{{/Template}}'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{/Template}} | {{/Template}} | ||
| == Reiki == | |||
| You have reverted what you ack was a good faith edit on ]. Your edit summary says attribution should be for all the assertions, not just one. What do you mean? I will refrain from reverting for the moment. Specifically please answer 1. Why not name NCAHF since they are the source? 2. Why revert my words "Since there is no scientific mechanism" to "ince there is presently no proven scientific mechanism"; and 3 why removed the word "alleged" since without the scientific proof it can only be "alleged." ] (]) 05:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It is good to attribute as you do "] suggests they may be due to the ]", but you also need to attribute "Since there is no scientific mechanism for Reiki's alleged effects." Such positive and absolute claims need attribution . ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::So you should please amend your reversion. Also you will note that it was not my edit on the science stuff. It was a copyedit only. While you amend, you may wish to post a citation tag. ] (]) 06:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I won't bother. Since no self-respecting scientist tries to prove a negative, there won't be any RS sources for the statement "there is no scientific mechanism for Reiki's alleged effects." In addition to the fact that no scientific mind would expect that Reiki would have scientific mechanisms, but would rather have natural mechanisms. Thus, if you want to put that pseudoscientific statement in, it is up to you to find a source. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 06:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, I'll edit it to be in line with science and possible sourcing, but reverting was ok also if I didn't want to fix it. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 06:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you. I'll now copyedit. Presently is a bit of a weasel word because the implication is that there might be some in the future. Hopefully my neutral formulation will be acceptable. I'm happy to remove "alleged" on the same basis. ] (]) 07:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Nah, it's pseudoscience, as usual, and as explained above. But I'll leave it for someone else to revert you. That article has plenty of editors . ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 07:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Revert== | |||
| Martinphi you have reverted me without discussion on ]. Perhaps you overlooked the statement at the top of the page "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Your edit did not have consensus, as you would probably know. Please rejoin the discussion. ] (]) 02:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You'll have to look at the talk page for the discussion. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 02:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hole== | |||
| See, there's no point in explaining it :-) ] (]) 05:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Removal of POV tag == | |||
| You have removed a POV tag on ] while knowing the article is under discussion. This is a serious breach of expected behaviour on wikipedia. I refuse to edit war with you and I ask you to revert yourself or I will consider reporting it to AN/I. You may wish to consult other editors on wikipedia who you trust before arriving at your decision. ] (]) 09:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||