Talk:Microvitum
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]Created by OrchidGhostOrchidGhost 01:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
This article was written in encyclopedic, academic style (instead of devotional). The article uses typical Wikipedia NPOV (neutral point of view) and "writing for the enemy style."
The article is still rough and needs editing; it is virtually a first draft. Since Wikipedia is open source (swiss cheese), anyone can simply open the edit tab and make any corrections. After you make corrections, please follow protocol and open the discussion tab and briefly record the nature of your changes.
The article is 17 pages long, which is too long by Wikipedia standards. Several parts need to be broken out into separate articles (such as Devayonii, etc.). The article is 53KB and 32KB is a recommended standard. It should probably be about 10 pages long. I followed the standard format of using the singular (Microvitum) for the name of the article, saving the plural (Microvita) for a Category heading.
I have tried to think about all the objections that I would have if I read an article about Microvitum and why I would reject it. I have recorded the objections that occurred to me and how the objections could be met. I tried to write as if I did not think like a margii. Instead of uncritically accepting Microvitum in a Nutshell, I tried to read from the perspective of a skeptic.
Many areas of the article need to be fleshed out and made readable for the beginning student. Sanskrit terms need better definitions and proper transliteration. I may well have made errors in my understanding of microvita theory.
Remember that an encyclopedia is no place for original thoughts and conclusions. If I made any error in that regard, it was with the thought of making sense of the topic at hand. 69.148.24.116 03:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)OrchidGhost
Advertising?
[edit]For cryin' out loud, this article reads like an advertisment. However, the most important point to make is this: If something can be demonstrated by experiment, it is a THEORY. If it cannot, it is a PHILOSOPHY. MicroVita, which reads as very new agey, is very much a philosophy, and this article reads like a marketing promotion. --71.233.73.84 16:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
there are many so called "theories" that also cannot be proven. take string theory for example. and microvita IS being studied, developed, and proved... just because you are not aware of it, doesnt mean its just something philosophical.