User talk:PvsKllKsVp

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Jamie S93 16:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! PvsKllKsVp (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kundalini syndrome

Thanks for your input.

Perhaps you can give some guidance as I presume you have been at wikipedia longer than myself. This is a truly weird article because it purports to give information about something that does not exist. That is why I worded the intro the way I did.

Indeed there is a "kundalini experience", a "kundalini awakening", a "kundalini energy", a "kundalini process" and a "kundalini phenomenon". These are all known and recognized associations. But there is no "kundalini syndrome" if by syndrome we mean a medical condition consisting of some confluence of features recognized by some medical text such as the APA's Diagnostic Manual DSM-IV.

In reality, the closest thing that exists - if only in the minds of a few isolated researchers - is the "physio-kundalini syndrome" written of by I. Bentov in his 1977 book and by Bruce Greyson in his 1990 paper "Some Neuropsychological Correlates of the Physio-kundalini Syndrome". That's it.

To try and resolve this, I created a similar article a couple of months back focused on Bentov and Greyson's concept and I called it "Physio-kundalini syndrome", but it was voted down and deleted just recently.

I have been going through the academic references, one by one. There is no support for a "kundalini syndrome" anywhere. And bit by bit, I am trying to bring some coherence to this strange article.

Does this make sense to you? What are we doing with an article about a non-entity in the first place? And granted that the article exists, how do you possibly word its introduction? I am doing my best, but I am puzzled. Please advise. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PvsKllKsVp. You have new messages at MSGJ's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.