User talk:NaturalPhilos

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Laws of Attraction do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that self-published books may not be used as sources. Solar Plexus: The Secret Gravitational System has the publisher listed as CreateSpace, which is Amazon's self-publishing operation. As such, it is not considered a reliable source, cannot be listed as a reference or as further reading. From Wikipedia's policy standpoint, the book is absolutely non-notable and the addition of references or other mentions of it to articles is considered to be spam or promotion. Yworo (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the publishing source, information from the added links and book, "Solar Plexus: The Secret Gravitational System" has been cited as a "verifiable" reference, as required by Wikipedia's content edits.

Nope, follow this link and read it: WP:SPS. Sources are required to be reliable. Self-published sources may be "verifiable", but they are not considered reliable. Persisting in promoting this book may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yworo, not sure what you are referring to as "promoting" materials. The edit of the article duly included Newton's Law of Gravitation, which is based on attraction; in addition to the removal of information where "citation was needed" and not provided: [here is what is currently referenced]

21st century The Law of Attraction was brought to hundreds of thousands of people for the first time by Rhonda Byrne through the film The Secret(2006) which is based on the "Law of Attraction" and includes many experts in the field of personal excellence such as Bob Proctor, Jack Canfield, Joe Vitale, John Grey and Marci Schimoff as well as quantum physicists John Hagelin and Fred Alan Wolf.[citation needed]

> In the above sentence, there is no reference to the above names listed, and it is unknown whether the additional names are involved with the body of work since they were not in the film. Why would the edit of that sentence be rejected when it clearly needs updating?

We are not promoting any one source, only providing current research on the topic, which is the purpose of Wikipedia - public information. Wikipedia in general is verifiable, but not completely reliable. In fact, the Law of Attraction article [at the top of the page] says:

"This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue..."

Thanks for your assistance, yet it seems there is bias towards new information and updating former data where citations are, in fact needed.

It doesn't matter what you were citing. Wikipedia does not accept citation to self-published books, blogs, websites or any other type of self-published information. Feel free to cite the same content to some other source which is published by a party independent from the author of the material. There is no bias against adding new material; there is a strict prohibition to using self-published material as a source for anything. Yworo (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

As clearly referenced above, our edits were numerous, and not favoring "one" published material. Rather, all of our edits, including grammar/punctuation, and [citation needed] were rejected for this article.

At any rate, after reading another Wiki by Hewitt about censorship, it is clearly understandable why edits are not allowed on this site. It all makes sense. Thanks again for the clarification: http://knol.google.com/k/carl-hewitt/corruption-of-wikipedia-http/pcxtp4rx7g1t/5#

NaturalPhilos

NaturalPhilos edits articles about philosophy and other new age materials, including science-based data.