It looks like the "Family Constellations" entry has been recently changed
as well. When I checked last (a week ago?), it was much more balanced and
positive. Now it is back to the "quantum quackery" language.
Ack.
There are numerous books, PhD dissertations and Knowing Field articles that
could be referenced. Feels like a big project - one that I would
participate in if there were a group of us who wanted to get involved.
If that's you, let me know.
*It is the courageous heart that loves. It is the loving heart that
heals.alisonfornes.com <http://alisonfornes.com>*
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Monika Dressler drmdressler@xxxxxxxxx
[ConstellationTalk] <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I have spent some time with help to look into this Wikipedia issue. It
appears there is only one hard core hostile editor Pinkbeast
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pinkbeast> and one sceptical editor
Alexbrn <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexbrn> who insist on
restoring the older version and refuse to consider any reasonable request
to re evaluate the text. It is not hard to restore the more balanced
version by 21:47, 14 January 2016
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Constellations&oldid=699854173>
Roxy the dog <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roxy_the_dog>
As a community we should be able to prevail over two editors in Wikipedia
but we will need to adhere to the Wikipedia rules. Also additional attempts
to communicate with those two hostile editors may eventually work?
1. generate a user name and password - very easy, but do not try to have
two accounts!
2. login
3. go to Family Constellation - View history
4. undo Pinkbeast <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pinkbeast> version
5. or edit/save the more balanced version by 21:47, 14 January 2016
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Constellations&oldid=699854173>
Roxy the dog <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roxy_the_dog>
It is not a large establishment we are up against just two recalcitrant
voluntary editors. I have been banned by them because my son was helping me
through his account, a breach of Wikipedia rules.
Good luck
Monika
------------------------------
*From:* "anngwyn@xxxxxxx [ConstellationTalk]" <
ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*To:* ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Sent:* Saturday, January 16, 2016 2:05 AM
*Subject:* Re: [ConstellationTalk] Changing the description of our work
on Wikipedia.
Hello Everyone,
No surprise, really... censorship by our controllers is on the
rise...perhaps you have noticed this elsewhere in your personal and
professional lives...
Kind regards
Anngwyn
In a message dated 1/15/2016 6:01:42 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Hello all,
In the past few days the following message has gone up on the Systemic
Constellations website. If the individual who changed the Family
Constellations page has the time and energy to change this page with the
same information it would likely benefit the whole constellations
community.
It is *proposed that this article be deleted
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion>* because of
the following concern:
Seems to have minimal sources, reliable or not. Google searches give very
few results, and the term seems to be used by only a few extreme-fringe
groups. Sources for the article do not appear to be either reliable or
notable.
If you can address this concern by improving
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy>, copyediting
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style>, sourcing
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing/1>,
renaming <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_a_page> or
merging <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging> the page, *please
edit this page
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Systemic_Constellations&action=edit>*
and do so. *You may remove this message if you improve the article or
otherwise object to deletion for any reason*. Although not required, you
are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your
edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, *do not
replace it*.
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven
days, i.e., after 13:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC).
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider
improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion
policy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy>.
------------------------------
Please consider *notifying the author/project:* {{subst
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Substitution>:proposed deletion
notify
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Proposed_deletion_notify>|Systemic
Constellations|concern=Seems to have minimal sources, reliable or not.
Google searches give very few results, and the term seems to be used by
only a few extreme-fringe groups. Sources for the article do not appear to
be either reliable or notable.}} ~~~~
*Timestamp:* 20160114130702 13:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Warm regards,
Patricia Robertson
On Jan 15, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Elmar Dornberger
elmar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [ConstellationTalk] <
ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I just found this today on the net and thought this might be of interest
so we all understand Wikipedia better.
At 15, Wikipedia Is Finally Finding Its Way to the Truth
Today, Wikipedia celebrates its 15th birthday. In Internet years, that’s
pretty old.
But it’s only just reaching maturity. Read the full story
<https://apple.news/AS-agbRzyQVKFlto2hqn69g>
Yours,
Elmar
On Jan 11, 2016, at 8:52 AM, Barbara Morgan theknowingfield@xxxxxxxxx
[ConstellationTalk]
<ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No doubt someone with a personal investment in keeping the negative out
there. Must be either someone who has had a negative personal experience of
the work or is in some way in competition. Why else would they come back so
quickly and change it back? Interesting why this is happening now, in terms
of field phenomena. Why this negative field around the work at this moment
in time?
Barbara
On 6 January 2016 at 18:06, jack blackwell travelerjbjb@xxxxxxxxx
[ConstellationTalk] <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Interesting, it has now been changed back to the original negative
description again. Hmmm
