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
<mailto:theknowingfield@xxxxxxxxx> [ConstellationTalk]
<ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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
<mailto:travelerjbjb@xxxxxxxxx> [ConstellationTalk]
<ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Interesting, it has now been changed back to the original negative
description again. Hmmm
