Fdl234

Welcome!

Hello, Fdl234, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

TheRingess (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Kundalini Yoga

Your edits to this page appear to be original research, as you do not provide any reliable sources where the nature of kundalini is debated. Please see WP:OR for an explanation of why Wikipedia does not accept original research. Thanks. TheRingess (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kundalini Yoga. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. TheRingess (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

The recent edit you made to Kundalini yoga constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Kundalini yoga. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. --Rrburke^(talk) 01:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Here is the problem. The original article has this:

"Sovatsky (1998) describes 'kundalini yoga' as an energetically guided yoga. This means that the discipline is informed by the Hindu understanding of pranotthana, or "intensified life-energy". Pranotthana is sometimes thought to lead to spontaneous psycho-motor manifestations which, according to Yogic hermeneutics, might be interpreted as signs of psycho-spiritual growth and bodily maturation."

What I did is to point out what is missing in the reference.

1. In Sovatsky's book, it says "intensified life-energy". I pointed out that there no measurement in terms of calorie about the "energy".

2. In Sovatsky's book, it says "psycho-spiritual growth", I pointed out that there is no definition of "spiritual" in the book.

Here is the modified paragraph"

"Sovatsky (1998) describes 'kundalini yoga' as an energetically guided yoga. This means that the discipline is informed by the Hindu understanding of pranotthana, or "intensified life-energy". But, there is no measurement how many calories a kundalini generates. Pranotthana is sometimes thought to lead to spontaneous psycho-motor manifestations which, according to Yogic hermeneutics, might be interpreted as signs of psycho-spiritual growth and bodily maturation." But, there is no definition of what “spiritual” means.

They are verifiable facts, not speculation, not vandalism, nor biased view.

This is good that you are now discussing this. I wish you had been willing to discuss this several days ago. So my first question is related to your observation #1. What does calories have to do with the sentence? Why does "intensified life energy" have anything to do with calories? Sure its a phrase that could use clarification. How do you know there is no measurement in terms of calorie? It does not matter that there is no definition of spiritual in the book, there is a definition of spiritual in a dictionary. You also continue to add material that implies that there is debate about the nature of kundalini yoga. You imply that it might be 1) spiritual 2) physical 3) both 4) neither 5) some combination of the 2. To say that it may not be spiritual implies that it may be. If there are discussions about the nature of kundalini yoga in reputable, peer reviewed journals, then we should include those discussions to maintain neutrality, we should not include a 1 sentence vague description that it may be one thing or another. If there are no discussions in peer reviewed journals, then your inclusion of that sentence is original research. Please read WP:OR. Once again, I'm glad you are now choosing to discuss your edits, rather than continually ignore other editor's concerns. Thanks. BTW, here is the sentence that I find to be too vague and sounds like original research: "It may not be spiritual nor religious in any sense". Again, if it may not be, it may well be.TheRingess (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)