Pod3CD

By removing a cited fact you are creating the very POV you claim you are trying to remove. I have cited that body memory is a "pseudoscientific notion of extra-cerebral memories". It isn't a POV statment. If you don't like it cite something else saying it not.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Psychologists' view is already well shown in the article with a neutrality. We don't have to put a label in a hysteric way using a ORINNAL RESEARCH. You have to show the citation for the combination of the two phrases. --Pod3CD (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have cited the statement twice. How many times does it take to no longer be "ORINNAL RESEARCH". Almost all your edit have been to remove statements in order to give body memory an implied scientific vitality that doesn’t exist. Your edits are changed this into a POV article not creating neutrality as claimed. I have now asked for a third opinon since you and I cannot find an agreement. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Message

Since you seem to have stopped editing and the compromise statement was added by WikiDao ☯ (talk) and we are now not actively disputing content, I now feel that the time is more appropriate to mention something. While going back and forth with you I began to suspect that this account is a Single-purpose account. I say this because your account was created on 18 September 2010, you have edited only Body memory or article directly related to that concept, and you appear to show good knowledge of wiki usage beyond that of a newbie.

However, I will assume good faith and assume I'm wrong, so I will do nothing but leave you this message. However, I would suggest to you , IF this is the case, that you should read up on this subject Single-purpose account. Using a Single-purpose account is a form of sock puppetry and can get you blocked.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)