Hello, Makeswell! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! freshacconci talktalk 23:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Meaning of life, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summarising a plot is fine - you should just be careful to avoid including your own interpretation (such as "yet the film leaves it to the viewer to see and garner what meaning they can from the film"). If you want to make a point outside of the basic plot of the film, you'll need to explicitly quote a review or interview. --McGeddon (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I readded the link you removed as not working, and corrected a typo which had been made in the domain name of the website. For future reference, if you find a dead link, please either try to find a working link (often pages have moved, and sometimes there are typos like this one), or mark it with the {{dead link}} template so that others can see that it is a dead link and can try to correct it later. Thanks for bringing the dead link to my attention though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I tried to move the page 'Health applications and clinical studies of meditation' to a new page called 'Meditation in Health Science' after reading a three year old thread on it under the talk page. I left-clicked the 'move' link and nothing happened except that a # sign was put at the end of the url in the address box at the top of the browser. I then tried to do the same thing on the Buddhist Meditation page and the same response occurred. What do I need to do to move the page? Thanks!--makeswell 18:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you didn't quite click on the right bit. Either that, or there is some browser problem. Check this pic, and/or see Help:Move. If you still have problems, ask again - or, probably better, talk to us live with this link.  Chzz  ►  18:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay in answering you! Lova Falk talk 08:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you.

ko:틀:서명 달기 알림 --SineBot (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid sudden deletions in the midst of a discussion on meditation for they will be viewed as edit warring. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.makeswell (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to main meant that I added the material to the Christian meditation article, called "main". It was not deleted, moved, just as I had previously moved Jainism material to keep the sections the same size. History2007 (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Makeswell, I responded on Talk: Meditation to your request for special treatment, which I thought wasn't a good idea. Also, I wanted to say that I noticed that you recently created a page for MBSR - good work! I'd noticed a while back that there was not any page for it yet, and I'm glad to see that it now exists. Perhaps it will take a while to iron out all the issues (I haven't looked at it closely though I saw someone had added a template several weeks ago), but I'm sure it will get refined over time. Glad you started it. And good luck with all the other pages you are helping to improve. Best wishes -- Health Researcher (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If I could ask you to please go ahead and add citation requests to the article so that I might source whatever it is that you are requesting..Also please come to the talkpage so that I might get some clarity on what exact (or the best we can arrive at) is at issue. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your comments. I was glad to throw my two-cents in on this one. It seems like there's been more disputing than constructive contributing to that article recently! I know it can be easy to get caught up in a dispute like that, but, yes, it's a good thing to step back from it for a moment when possible and consider what's best for the article as opposed to for your argument.
I made a few edits to the article myself earlier today, but I really think the best thing at this point would be to just replace that whole section with the current lead of the Christian meditation article itself. I posted that suggestion and more comment at Talk:Meditation#mentioning Theoria -- what do you think?
Regards, Wikiscient (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would to suggest this book for you to give an introduction to what theoria is.

• The Spirituality of the Christian East: A systematic handbook by Tomáš Špidlík Cistercian Publications, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1986. ISBN 0-87907-879-0

I must say that the book is inaccurate (it confuses gnosis with theoria which is a NO NO). But this is OK it is a good book for you none the less. Theoria is not meditation (at least in an Eastern Orthodox sense of it). All people everyone have Theosis in one degree or another. I have allot of new age syncretic editors trying to edit war over the Theoria article so I apologize if I appear defensive. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Makeswell. I've suggested here an alternative illustration for the Inflammation article, which you have commented on in the past. Your thoughts would be welcome. Anthony (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Mindfulness-based stress reduction, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Pontificalibus (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Makeswell. Thank You so much. I need your help. I am trying to get some references. But I am not sure how to do these things so I wish that you can help me set it up. Or even help me organise a bio page of Swami Jai Sathya. Can I email you some links about Her.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vish Baala (talk • contribs) 00:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and respect WP:BRD, regarding Meditation. History2007 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

APPEAL TO YOU Reg: [BRAHMAN PUJAN] , [UNIVERSAL PRAYERS] . written by [Naresh Sonee] On wikipedia , These above two pages are far older than the present article [Brahman] References of above titles are also available on New York site - http://www.printsasia.com/BookDetails.aspx?Id=445813482 Meanwhile, Can your good selves in Wiki Project Indian Community re-create a precise pages on [Naresh Sonee] & his book [Brahmand Pujan] – [Brahmaand Pujan] . However, Sonee is the writer of this book [Brahmand Pujan] written in 1999 . registered with Government of India- HRRD. Details of the registration is provided here on http://brhmaandpujanbook.tripod.com/ . More than sufficient, news and reviews are there on http://brhmaandpujan-news-reviews.tripod.com/ Since 5-6 yrs, for one or the other reason pages of [Naresh Sonee] & [Brahmand Pujan] are faced by communal bias from outside India so these articles over and again get deleted here in Wikipedia for minor reasons. However, many hits of - Naresh Sonee reflects on google search engine also. So, I request Wiki Indian community to kindly come forward and generously help these two pages to grow, as I am fed up to fight my case alone here [left] and moved out long back. Meanwhile, such an important info/issue on ‘Indian literature’ which adds & spell ‘new meaning /dimension’ to Brahman -should it stay lost else ignored? Your community panel has to judge at last. Myself, will not be on Wikipedia, for the same i apologise, but- pls. help these two pages to get reinstalled, reap, sow and grow, if you too feel so, I appeal to do this munificent favour. Regards- Dralansun (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for adding the research section in the TM article . I had planned to do it but had family events to deal with. We did have a consensus to use for now, the intros of the articles listed on that page as a way to summarize the content, so I added that content while checking the wording in the sources for accuracy. Thanks for the start. I'd forgotten about it.(olive (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Cool. makeswell (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Antidote (Buddhism) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Does not appear to be backed up by reliable-third party sources that address the subject directly in detail.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SudoGhost 13:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Asdfmovie requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 01:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Samu (Zen) 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/Samu (Zen) 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brain-derived neurotrophic factor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Environmental enrichment (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) 08:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Human nutrition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substrates. 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) 08:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Andrew,

You reverted my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newton%27s_laws_of_motion&oldid=629291389&diff=prev

I am not sure I agree with your reasoning as of yet, for three reasons. The reasoning you gave was, "It is true in any consistent system of units. No need to mention a favorite here."

1) The units I mentioned are the standard SI units. SI units are the ones used around the world. It is not that the units are my favorites but that they are the ones universally accepted.

2) The second law is not true if the units are changed. For instance if the second law is given in terms of Newtons, meters per second squared, and grams, it is no longer true. Units give physical meaning to a law and insight into what the law is saying.

3) In practice calculations involving the second law always involve units. It seems appropriate to mention units in a section about the second law because the second law is always used with units.

I would be interested in hearing what you have to say.

P.S. This point may not be worth mentioning. I mean, it's not my main argument, but that we would leave this statement, "Thus, the net force applied to a body produces a proportional acceleration. In other words, if a body is accelerating, then there is a force on it," which was adjacent to the statement I made about units, which you removed, but then remove a statement about units, really boggles my mind. It seems much more relevant to me to mention that there are units in which the force, mass and acceleration are mentioned than the restate the law in a sentence when it has already been stated as a formula. Just making the point that it is not like we're in dire need to save space. Units are so inherent in any calculations or understanding involving the second law that it seems strange to mention the law without mentioning units, and since SI units are the universally accepted system of units, those are the ones to go with. makeswell (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The truth of Newton's second law is independent of any system of units, and can just as easily be calculated correctly in US customary units, where force is in pounds, mass is in slugs, and acceleration is in ft/s^2. As your example in item 2 demonstrates, simply using SI units is not sufficient to be successful. It is always necessary to be aware of the units going into a formula in order to know what units come out of a formula and to make conversions when necessary. My objection was not specifically with providing an example calculation with units, but to the implied assertion that the law is only true if the correct units, or SI units, or even N, m, and kg, are chosen. Finally, the second law is not always used with units. Plenty of analyses are performed that incorporate the second law and many other laws to produce algebraic or unit-less results. After all, Newton published his laws in 1687, and the forerunner to SI units wasn't implemented until the 1790s. Let's continue this conversation on the article talk page. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Wikipedia page, please fill out the following form. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia Collections please do so here.

Thanks,

Jon Katz
Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation
Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Makeswell. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Makeswell. 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)[reply]

Hello, Makeswell. 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)[reply]