User talk:KellyPhD

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -Mike Restivo (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tulāsana for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tulāsana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulāsana until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Factual addendum to above template notification: The AfD discussion concerns a total of 58 asana articles. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 15:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of women warriors in folklore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fallen Leaf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lotus birth may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave my operator a message on his talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Navel Integrity Lotus Birth.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Navel Integrity Lotus Birth.jpg, which you've attributed to https://www.facebook.com/lotusbirthcampaign#!/photo.php?fbid=276432375754483&set=p.276432375754483&type=1&theater. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lotus birth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:In-utero Existence, Placenta-Cord-Child.png

Thanks for uploading File:In-utero Existence, Placenta-Cord-Child.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Jeannine Parvati Workshop Flyer.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jeannine Parvati Workshop Flyer.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning

Your work on lotus birth has been a years-long campaign of blatant tendentious editing. Many of your edits are overtly non-neutral, and they have transformed the article into a tendentious screed. This is disruptive and has to stop. Since the damage to the article is quite thorough, I am going to reduce it to a brief stub, and will ask members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine to help rebuild it. You are welcome to participate in its reconstruction, but if you start engaging in advocacy again while doing so, you will be blocked without further notice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my warnings, you have continued your disruptive advocacy editing, this time on the doula article, with these edits [1], which, besides being overtly argumentative and tendentious, also falsified statements attributed to a source. This is unacceptable. I have therefore blocked you. The block is of undetermined duration and may be lifted if and when you make a credible commitment to this project's goal of neutral coverage and due weight given to mainstream scientific consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the procedure to have a blocking decision further reviewed and citations actually analyzed? I have attempted to edit boldly and helpfully, and have been rewarded for my contributions in the past. Though one particular administrator has taken offense at the topic, and my editing style( which include many small edits over concentrated periods of time), my ignored my plentiful and diverse citations have been ignored.

In addition, the topic Lotus birth is not a medical category. Birth is a human event, not a disease, and not exclusively a medical event. The topic incorporates anthrolopology, psychology, sociology, and public health as well as evidence-based medical journal citations.

The page is a helpful community education resource in a developing area of inter-disciplinary research and social dialogue. The history for the page involves a battle between editors who view the topic exclusively through the lens of medicine and those who do not.

--KellyPhD (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I cannot figure out how to email admin Fut Per at Sun, I am posting this request in hopes to bring attention to the above. We may not speak the same languages, but quality of citations and bold neutrality rather than bias is a common goal. I am diligent at removing biased presentation and facilitating full-spectrum inquiry and review.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KellyPhD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

diligent references and boldness of editing with an inclusive and neutral report on a topic of little interest or participation of other editors. Editing collaboration welcome. Reference review requested but apparently denied by Fut Per at Sun. References include BMJ, Univ. of Florida, and many internal links. Thank you KellyPhD (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In addition, the topic Lotus birth is not a medical category. Birth is a human event, not a disease, and not exclusively a medical event. The topic incorporates anthrolopology, psychology, sociology, and public health as well as evidence-based medical journal citations.

The page is a helpful community education resource in a developing area of inter-disciplinary research and social dialogue. The history for the page involves a battle between editors who view the topic exclusively through the lens of medicine and those who do not.--KellyPhD (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'd love to get in touch with you to find out how you know so much about Jeannine Parvati - I'm wanting to put together a biography at some point because people need to know all that she's done (I'm her eldest daughter). Feel free to contact me - drloi@drloi.com. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:7876:F89:A531:DCEF:B7A4:FCC (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

How's it going? Do you know if there are nociceptors in the cord or placenta? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following your situation here. You appear to have been blocked for adding health, efficacy and safety claims that are not supported by good sources. If you want to return to editing, and want clarification or help with that, don't hesitate to contact me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthonyhcole, I am blocked and cannot post on your talk page - but in case you check back and see this, yes I would like to return to editing and would like to restore a good many excellent references and internal links.

To answer your previous question - nociceptors are not an area of my expertise. But it is common knowledge or empirically evidenced to midwives that undrugged babies scream when their cords are cut even within the first 20-45 minutes after birth when the cord has internally clamped with Wharton's Jelly, and western science has no answer for why. However, after that time period, when the cord is very shrunken, they don't appear bothered by any cutting. The Midwifery Model of Care protocol is at least one hour of undisturbed bonding before any cord cutting, and though midwives in the west are just now seeing more clients request lotus births, midwives in Bali consider lotus birth quite normal.

However, the innate natural cord drying process ensures full stem cell transmission the first 20 minutes after birth (Tolosa, J.N., Park, D.H., Eve, D.J., Klasko, S.K., Borlongan, C.V. & Sanberg, P.R. (2010). Mankind’s first natural stem cell transplant. Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, 14:3, p488-495.). Neonatal transitional physiology, like many other things in western science, is a new paradigm for exploration - though it has a longstanding respect in eastern science and traditional midwifery.

As another editor pointed out, in the talk page for lotus birth, birth is a human event primarily, and only a medical event secondarily. It being a human event, it touches on anthropology (birth and culture), pre and perinatal psychology, primatology, and feminist health/informed choice. To, as Future Sunset has done, take lotus birth and give it only a medical view, is not to do it justice. I am a published researcher on the midwifery model of care for birth and postpartum, not the medical model. They are two different models with very different information bases and orientations. However, in terms of the medical model, certain physicians are quite outspoken about the benefits of lotus birth in terms of the elimination of risk of tetanus at the site of the open wound incision (Michel Odent, MD and Sarah Buckley MD). When I research and write on any human development topic, I seek to incorporate an interdisplinary approach - to me, that is humanitarianism.

I would love your help, but being as I am blocked indefinitely due to the reactionary act of FPAS, I am currently unable to post, which seems rather a disservice to informed choice public education resources on the matter. Or in the very least, dictatorial, questionable, and not conducive to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. KellyPhD (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I got your email, too. Do you receive email notification when someone leaves a message on your talk page? If not, you can enable that by going to "preferences" (top of this page), "notifications", and ticking "email" next to "Talk page post". It will be a little while before I get back to you - I am unwell at the moment, with a longish to-do list - but I'll post here once I've read through the history and sources for this article.

We are pretty strict about the kind of sources that support health claims, especially for safety and efficacy claims. Let's see if there is any more we can say within our guidelines. I'll get back to you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, appreciate it! I understand about time availability - am only on Wikipiedia sporadically at best :) KellyPhD (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Triple goddess shakti.jpg

The file File:Triple goddess shakti.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Yogini in devanagari script.png

The file File:Yogini in devanagari script.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Delayed Cord Clamping Calmness, 3 Hours Old.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Delayed Cord Clamping Calmness, 3 Hours Old.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Rishikesh upstream ganga india.jpg

The file File:Rishikesh upstream ganga india.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Small, low-res. Replaceable with files at c:Category:Ganges River in Rishikesh.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]