|
Hello MrBill3, yes, we are in agreement about some of the deficiencies of the current article. The studies that have been done have been mostly published in unacceptable journals, therefore the best source seems to be books from mainstream publishers that review and explain a number of therapeutic modalities. Deutsch and Daniels are my initial offerings, and I'm looking into several others. Modalities for Massage and Bodywork by Stillerman, Mosby (2009) is another that I plan to use. There is one study that shows up in the Cochrane Library (I understand from WP:MEDRS that this is a good sign that you'll find it acceptable) - it's old, but it might be worth including. "Shifts in pelvic inclination angle and parasympathetic tone produced by Rolfing soft tissue manipulation." Cottingham JT , Porges SW and Richmond K. Physical therapy, 1988, 68(9). There's a page that would benefit from your particular brand of attention: Postural_Integration. Sources are all primary, with 11 of the 12 being from the founder's writings. This is a very fringe form of bodywork and I haven't been able to find any reference to it in the secondary source books I'm consulting. It is in the list of types of massage at the bottom of the Rolfing page, but I think it should be removed from that list due to be quite obscure. Google didn't produce much useful information, either, nor did it produce local practitioners. I'm hesitant to rip into this page myself, being a newbie and not being sure how to handle an utter lack of sources. Thought you might be interested. -- Karinpower ( talk) 05:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the collaborative tone that you use in general; I really appreciate it. I've checked out the teahouse and intend to use it as I formulate some of my ideas.... in particular I think there is good basis in quality book sources for questioning the categorization of massage (vs. manipulative therapy, manual therapy, or bodywork, all more inclusive terms than massage), but it's not strong enough to reverse the current statement, so I will need help on how to convey that split evidence appropriately in the article (yet keeping it succinct enough to keep it in perspective to the rest of the information). I've found some other pages that I'm interested in working on.... as I've done some of this research I'm coming across sources that would be beneficial for clarifying related topics. I've long had the urge to fix small errors that I find but until recently wasn't ready to invest the time to learn the system. Pretty cool to be able to contribute now. Thanks again for your advice. -- Karinpower ( talk) 17:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse Badge | |
Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the
Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to
learn how to edit Wikipedia. | |
Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line at
my talk page. Happy Editing!
|
Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 05:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words... The article is on my watchlist now. Hopefully I'll pitch in within the next couple of days or so.
I have unretired - so to speak - by simply taking it a bit easier these days. I'm in a review/mediation-kind-of-mood right now so this is just fine. GregorB ( talk) 18:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You wrote elsewhere, "I think there is a need for WP as an organization to decide on a template of sorts for alternative medicine, to say what basic sections should be present and in what order."
First WP is not so much an organization as a community albeit one with a well developed set of policies and guidelines (PAG). So as an equal member you are welcome to develop a "best practice" or model. This could then be discussed and later pointed to if the discussion leads to some level of consensus. You could wind up being the author of an essay or guideline! Best of luck, but it seems plenty of people have managed it ;)
More practical (IMO) and probably easier is to find an article that you think does a good job of presenting an alt med topic. And is stable, having survived at least a modicum of scrutiny (read as: ruthless attack by anti alt med zealots). Then create an outline in a subpage of your sandbox (like User:Karinpower/sandbox/AltMedStucture or such) to use as a reference. Then go to an alt med article you think needs improvement (read as: unbalanced ax grinding buttress of negativity) and try working the article into shape using your idea of a well structured fair presentation (undoubtably to be seen as shameless promotion of woo by the cabal [which doesn't exist]). Having done this a number of times (which undeniably would require the patience of a saint, the feisty persistence of a mongoose etc.) you would be able to point to several articles and your sandbox "structure" when working on articles or assisting/guiding others in doing so. You could post a link to said articles and "structure" in a boilerplate post on talk pages of articles you felt needed work.
For doing all this, in addition to the immense satisfaction from improving WP, you would probably receive a shiny (or otherwise textured/surfaced) Barnstar from that other
cabal (which we all know does exist) and perhaps an acknowledgement of your
competence.
Thank you for your contributions to WP, especially your patience and willingness to work with and learn (read as: puzzle over, become baffled by and beat your head on) the infamous/notorious/ endless (read as: wantonly abused) WP PAG. I hope this is at least moderately amusing (some links are to humor) and a trifle useful. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 07:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi there Karin, I noticed there seems to be a bit of confusion on your part about osteopaths vs. osteopathic physicians. They are not the same thing, but it is not appropriate to simply change osteopaths to osteopathic physicians because these are two separate professions and both of them do muscle energy techniques. Therefore, an inclusive list would have both osteopaths and osteopathic physicians as practitioners of muscle energy (I undid your revert so that this is reflected). Please let me know if you have any questions here, on my talk page, or on the muscle energy technique talk page. Thanks Karin. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 01:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Will take a look, hopefully by the end of the day... GregorB ( talk) 10:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Karinpower! You took it upon yourself to revert an edit I made to the article Massage because I failed to leave an "explanation" as to why I made the change. For clarification, I added a link to an article that sourced recognized scholarly and trade journals regarding the benefits of massage. There was also an external link to a publication created by the American Massage Therapy Association and another to a document authored by the oversight board for Massage Therapists in Quebec. These links were removed by Yobol, who said they were not authoritative enough.
After I reverted the removal and explained why on his talk page, he stated "In the light of day, the AQTN source in particular does not look as bad as when I first looked at it. I find myself unable to get worked up enough about these particular ELs (given the ambiguity of the guideline on ELs especially) to pursue this further. Happy editing! Yobol (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)"
I find it hard to believe that even the staunchest critics and sticklers for protocol can justify the removal of links in an article on Massage to publications authored by agencies overseeing portions of the industry. Yet you have taken it upon yourself to do just that.
I will not revert the article again, it's not that important to me. But I will say that if you cannot take an objective stance when you edit content here, perhaps you should not be an editor... Ormr2014 ( talk) 17:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Karinpower! Thanks for the well-rounded and respectful response. I admit that patience is not one of my strong points and I'm often quite stubborn in my views. I've found that many individuals here take an extreme view on things like external linking when convenient, yet are quite lax when they're the ones adding them. It irritates me when I see this because it almost seems like they are lording over others with this "I'm more qualified than you" attitude. Believe me when I say I've been temporarily banned more than once for such reversions.
In any event, I'll be sure to be more discerning in what I decide to revert in the future. Thanks for your time. Ormr2014 ( talk)
I fully agree with you. The article Massage is desperately in need of citations and I'm sure that some of the referenced sources do not really qualify as such. I'll go through it as I am able. I've added " citation needed" in many places and will add more. I will also spend some time finding sources of verification where I am able. Hopefully, we can improve the article! Ormr2014 ( talk) 22:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Article is hardly related with Hinduism, article is like India page, just mention of few Hindus wouldn't make it. That's why the template was removed. Bladesmulti ( talk) 16:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The article is on my watchlist now, hopefully I'll be able to take a look within a couple of days or so. GregorB ( talk) 23:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks, I appreciate it! -- Karinpower ( talk) 23:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
3world Kid ( talk) 20:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC) I refer to your edit of the article on Else Klink. I translated the article from the German Wikipedia here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Else_Klink and added some facts from the available biographies. Thank you for pointing out the lack of citations. I shall fix that.
3world Kid ( talk) 21:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your note. I have only found one citation in English from the Los Angeles Times. It did all happen long ago before the days of the Internet. She did, after all, receive the "Verdienstkreuz der BRD" which is the equivalent of what the OBE used to be.
3world Kid ( talk) 15:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks very much for the tip. I was indeed able to find some books and another citation. I had no idea they existed in English. I really appreciate the support.
Hi Karin, I assume this is the relevant Peter Levene (it was moved a couple of time which makes it harder to track)
If you have any interest in rewriting and referencing this, I can userfy it for you, or let me know if you have any other suggestions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your thanks re my edit at the Human Potential Movement article. It seems not everyone agrees as it was reverted a few hours later! I've reinserted it and made the attribution explicit. There's a comment on the talk page. DaveApter ( talk) 10:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Rolfing. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Just to let you know I'm not done with Rolfing yet - time permitting, I'll take a closer look at the article vs. the talk page remarks and give my input regarding the article's neutrality. GregorB ( talk) 15:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
What is your opinion about restoring the following excerpt (currently deleted from article)? It is well supported by the references.
The effects of warm water, gentle touch, and numerous flowing movement techniques produce a deep state of relaxation. Watsu is used as a form of passive aquatic therapy for physical rehabilitation of illness, injury, and disability. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Thanks, TheProfessor ( talk) 21:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you think it would be worthwhile to expunge misuse of the term modality from the Massage article? I suggest using the terms "manual therapy" or simply "technique" or "form".
Here are typical definitions of modality as used in physical therapy and rehabilition:
"A modality is a type of electrical, thermal or mechanical energy that causes physiological changes. It is used to relieve pain, improve circulation, decrease swelling, reduce muscle spasm, and deliver medication in conjunction with other procedures. Typical types of modalities include electrical muscle stimulation, ultrasound, heat, ice, and traction." ( http://www.yorkvillept.com/about/what-is-a-pt-modality)
"Physical therapists are trained in the therapeutic application of various basic physical agents that we call modalities. These agents are thermal [heat and cold], electrical, sound, light and mechanical... [Modalities] are used to reduce pain and joint swelling, reduce muscle spasm, restore functional joint mobility, increase local blood flow to injured tissues and deliver medications subcutaneously in conjunction with other procedures." ( http://www.orthobalancept.com/treatment-modalities-procedures)
By contrast, massage techniques or forms would are considered a procedure or manual therapy:
"[Procedure] usually refers to skilled or manual (hands-on) techniques such as different types of therapeutic massage, mobilization, traction, exercise…" ( http://www.yorkvillept.com/about/what-is-a-pt-procedure)
"In addition to the physical agents and treatment modalities used in PT, there are other types of procedures such as therapeutic exercise prescription, neuromuscular re training, visual and electrical biofeedback, manual therapeutic techniques, soft tissue release and biomechanical analysis and correction of various physical impairments and dysfunctions." ( http://www.orthobalancept.com/treatment-modalities-procedures)
Thanks - TheProfessor ( talk) 09:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I know you've been a part of discussions on the rolfing wiki in the past. == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Rolfing. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keep fighting the good fight. Cyintherye ( talk) 23:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you would find this discussion about the Gokhale Method interesting. Feel free to share your opinion. See also the article's talk page.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 14:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Karinpower. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
There is consensus to generally include this. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Karinpower. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi there! Given your major interest in the Rolfing article, I'm amazed this hasn't come up before (correct me if I'm wrong!), but do you have any conflict of interest wrt Rolfing? You are aware I assume of WP:MEDCOI? Alexbrn ( talk) 07:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Your edit to Ida Rolf has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa ( talk) 14:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in complementary and alternative medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
|
Hello MrBill3, yes, we are in agreement about some of the deficiencies of the current article. The studies that have been done have been mostly published in unacceptable journals, therefore the best source seems to be books from mainstream publishers that review and explain a number of therapeutic modalities. Deutsch and Daniels are my initial offerings, and I'm looking into several others. Modalities for Massage and Bodywork by Stillerman, Mosby (2009) is another that I plan to use. There is one study that shows up in the Cochrane Library (I understand from WP:MEDRS that this is a good sign that you'll find it acceptable) - it's old, but it might be worth including. "Shifts in pelvic inclination angle and parasympathetic tone produced by Rolfing soft tissue manipulation." Cottingham JT , Porges SW and Richmond K. Physical therapy, 1988, 68(9). There's a page that would benefit from your particular brand of attention: Postural_Integration. Sources are all primary, with 11 of the 12 being from the founder's writings. This is a very fringe form of bodywork and I haven't been able to find any reference to it in the secondary source books I'm consulting. It is in the list of types of massage at the bottom of the Rolfing page, but I think it should be removed from that list due to be quite obscure. Google didn't produce much useful information, either, nor did it produce local practitioners. I'm hesitant to rip into this page myself, being a newbie and not being sure how to handle an utter lack of sources. Thought you might be interested. -- Karinpower ( talk) 05:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the collaborative tone that you use in general; I really appreciate it. I've checked out the teahouse and intend to use it as I formulate some of my ideas.... in particular I think there is good basis in quality book sources for questioning the categorization of massage (vs. manipulative therapy, manual therapy, or bodywork, all more inclusive terms than massage), but it's not strong enough to reverse the current statement, so I will need help on how to convey that split evidence appropriately in the article (yet keeping it succinct enough to keep it in perspective to the rest of the information). I've found some other pages that I'm interested in working on.... as I've done some of this research I'm coming across sources that would be beneficial for clarifying related topics. I've long had the urge to fix small errors that I find but until recently wasn't ready to invest the time to learn the system. Pretty cool to be able to contribute now. Thanks again for your advice. -- Karinpower ( talk) 17:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse Badge | |
Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the
Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to
learn how to edit Wikipedia. | |
Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line at
my talk page. Happy Editing!
|
Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 05:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words... The article is on my watchlist now. Hopefully I'll pitch in within the next couple of days or so.
I have unretired - so to speak - by simply taking it a bit easier these days. I'm in a review/mediation-kind-of-mood right now so this is just fine. GregorB ( talk) 18:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You wrote elsewhere, "I think there is a need for WP as an organization to decide on a template of sorts for alternative medicine, to say what basic sections should be present and in what order."
First WP is not so much an organization as a community albeit one with a well developed set of policies and guidelines (PAG). So as an equal member you are welcome to develop a "best practice" or model. This could then be discussed and later pointed to if the discussion leads to some level of consensus. You could wind up being the author of an essay or guideline! Best of luck, but it seems plenty of people have managed it ;)
More practical (IMO) and probably easier is to find an article that you think does a good job of presenting an alt med topic. And is stable, having survived at least a modicum of scrutiny (read as: ruthless attack by anti alt med zealots). Then create an outline in a subpage of your sandbox (like User:Karinpower/sandbox/AltMedStucture or such) to use as a reference. Then go to an alt med article you think needs improvement (read as: unbalanced ax grinding buttress of negativity) and try working the article into shape using your idea of a well structured fair presentation (undoubtably to be seen as shameless promotion of woo by the cabal [which doesn't exist]). Having done this a number of times (which undeniably would require the patience of a saint, the feisty persistence of a mongoose etc.) you would be able to point to several articles and your sandbox "structure" when working on articles or assisting/guiding others in doing so. You could post a link to said articles and "structure" in a boilerplate post on talk pages of articles you felt needed work.
For doing all this, in addition to the immense satisfaction from improving WP, you would probably receive a shiny (or otherwise textured/surfaced) Barnstar from that other
cabal (which we all know does exist) and perhaps an acknowledgement of your
competence.
Thank you for your contributions to WP, especially your patience and willingness to work with and learn (read as: puzzle over, become baffled by and beat your head on) the infamous/notorious/ endless (read as: wantonly abused) WP PAG. I hope this is at least moderately amusing (some links are to humor) and a trifle useful. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 07:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi there Karin, I noticed there seems to be a bit of confusion on your part about osteopaths vs. osteopathic physicians. They are not the same thing, but it is not appropriate to simply change osteopaths to osteopathic physicians because these are two separate professions and both of them do muscle energy techniques. Therefore, an inclusive list would have both osteopaths and osteopathic physicians as practitioners of muscle energy (I undid your revert so that this is reflected). Please let me know if you have any questions here, on my talk page, or on the muscle energy technique talk page. Thanks Karin. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 01:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Will take a look, hopefully by the end of the day... GregorB ( talk) 10:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Karinpower! You took it upon yourself to revert an edit I made to the article Massage because I failed to leave an "explanation" as to why I made the change. For clarification, I added a link to an article that sourced recognized scholarly and trade journals regarding the benefits of massage. There was also an external link to a publication created by the American Massage Therapy Association and another to a document authored by the oversight board for Massage Therapists in Quebec. These links were removed by Yobol, who said they were not authoritative enough.
After I reverted the removal and explained why on his talk page, he stated "In the light of day, the AQTN source in particular does not look as bad as when I first looked at it. I find myself unable to get worked up enough about these particular ELs (given the ambiguity of the guideline on ELs especially) to pursue this further. Happy editing! Yobol (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)"
I find it hard to believe that even the staunchest critics and sticklers for protocol can justify the removal of links in an article on Massage to publications authored by agencies overseeing portions of the industry. Yet you have taken it upon yourself to do just that.
I will not revert the article again, it's not that important to me. But I will say that if you cannot take an objective stance when you edit content here, perhaps you should not be an editor... Ormr2014 ( talk) 17:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Karinpower! Thanks for the well-rounded and respectful response. I admit that patience is not one of my strong points and I'm often quite stubborn in my views. I've found that many individuals here take an extreme view on things like external linking when convenient, yet are quite lax when they're the ones adding them. It irritates me when I see this because it almost seems like they are lording over others with this "I'm more qualified than you" attitude. Believe me when I say I've been temporarily banned more than once for such reversions.
In any event, I'll be sure to be more discerning in what I decide to revert in the future. Thanks for your time. Ormr2014 ( talk)
I fully agree with you. The article Massage is desperately in need of citations and I'm sure that some of the referenced sources do not really qualify as such. I'll go through it as I am able. I've added " citation needed" in many places and will add more. I will also spend some time finding sources of verification where I am able. Hopefully, we can improve the article! Ormr2014 ( talk) 22:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Article is hardly related with Hinduism, article is like India page, just mention of few Hindus wouldn't make it. That's why the template was removed. Bladesmulti ( talk) 16:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The article is on my watchlist now, hopefully I'll be able to take a look within a couple of days or so. GregorB ( talk) 23:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks, I appreciate it! -- Karinpower ( talk) 23:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
3world Kid ( talk) 20:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC) I refer to your edit of the article on Else Klink. I translated the article from the German Wikipedia here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Else_Klink and added some facts from the available biographies. Thank you for pointing out the lack of citations. I shall fix that.
3world Kid ( talk) 21:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your note. I have only found one citation in English from the Los Angeles Times. It did all happen long ago before the days of the Internet. She did, after all, receive the "Verdienstkreuz der BRD" which is the equivalent of what the OBE used to be.
3world Kid ( talk) 15:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks very much for the tip. I was indeed able to find some books and another citation. I had no idea they existed in English. I really appreciate the support.
Hi Karin, I assume this is the relevant Peter Levene (it was moved a couple of time which makes it harder to track)
If you have any interest in rewriting and referencing this, I can userfy it for you, or let me know if you have any other suggestions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your thanks re my edit at the Human Potential Movement article. It seems not everyone agrees as it was reverted a few hours later! I've reinserted it and made the attribution explicit. There's a comment on the talk page. DaveApter ( talk) 10:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Rolfing. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Just to let you know I'm not done with Rolfing yet - time permitting, I'll take a closer look at the article vs. the talk page remarks and give my input regarding the article's neutrality. GregorB ( talk) 15:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
What is your opinion about restoring the following excerpt (currently deleted from article)? It is well supported by the references.
The effects of warm water, gentle touch, and numerous flowing movement techniques produce a deep state of relaxation. Watsu is used as a form of passive aquatic therapy for physical rehabilitation of illness, injury, and disability. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Thanks, TheProfessor ( talk) 21:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you think it would be worthwhile to expunge misuse of the term modality from the Massage article? I suggest using the terms "manual therapy" or simply "technique" or "form".
Here are typical definitions of modality as used in physical therapy and rehabilition:
"A modality is a type of electrical, thermal or mechanical energy that causes physiological changes. It is used to relieve pain, improve circulation, decrease swelling, reduce muscle spasm, and deliver medication in conjunction with other procedures. Typical types of modalities include electrical muscle stimulation, ultrasound, heat, ice, and traction." ( http://www.yorkvillept.com/about/what-is-a-pt-modality)
"Physical therapists are trained in the therapeutic application of various basic physical agents that we call modalities. These agents are thermal [heat and cold], electrical, sound, light and mechanical... [Modalities] are used to reduce pain and joint swelling, reduce muscle spasm, restore functional joint mobility, increase local blood flow to injured tissues and deliver medications subcutaneously in conjunction with other procedures." ( http://www.orthobalancept.com/treatment-modalities-procedures)
By contrast, massage techniques or forms would are considered a procedure or manual therapy:
"[Procedure] usually refers to skilled or manual (hands-on) techniques such as different types of therapeutic massage, mobilization, traction, exercise…" ( http://www.yorkvillept.com/about/what-is-a-pt-procedure)
"In addition to the physical agents and treatment modalities used in PT, there are other types of procedures such as therapeutic exercise prescription, neuromuscular re training, visual and electrical biofeedback, manual therapeutic techniques, soft tissue release and biomechanical analysis and correction of various physical impairments and dysfunctions." ( http://www.orthobalancept.com/treatment-modalities-procedures)
Thanks - TheProfessor ( talk) 09:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I know you've been a part of discussions on the rolfing wiki in the past. == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Rolfing. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keep fighting the good fight. Cyintherye ( talk) 23:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you would find this discussion about the Gokhale Method interesting. Feel free to share your opinion. See also the article's talk page.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 14:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Karinpower. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
There is consensus to generally include this. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Karinpower. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi there! Given your major interest in the Rolfing article, I'm amazed this hasn't come up before (correct me if I'm wrong!), but do you have any conflict of interest wrt Rolfing? You are aware I assume of WP:MEDCOI? Alexbrn ( talk) 07:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Your edit to Ida Rolf has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa ( talk) 14:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in complementary and alternative medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.