User talk:Dhar8062

Searching in help
How can I search just in the help section of wikipedia not just wp:(term)???? Dhar8062 10:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where can I find commonly used tags??
Such as may contain original research, current event?? All I found is WP:NOR policy not the tag syntax.Dhar8062 10:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Expert tag
Must http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Expert-subject be connected to a WikiProject? Will I be able to just narrow it down, something like.... "This psychology-related article needs expert help"? Dhar8062 11:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Adoption
Hello! I see your seeking adoption. If your still interested I'd me more then happy to answer your questions and help you out. You can respond back to this by leaving a message here. If you have decided that you no longer wish to be adopted, please remove the adoptee's userbox from your userpage. Thanks, hope to hear from you soon! Matthew Yeager 01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

re:adoption
good to hear that you have grown and developed some awesome Wikipedia skills already. For searching... well you can search with out the "wp: " to get the same thing like "WP:Admin" takes you right to the page, but "admin" takes you to the dis ambiguous page. besides that you can always ask a specific questions and put on your talk page and an experienced Wikipedian should be along shortly. Plus, feel free to ask me about anything you need or can't find. Most times i can get it for you, or point you to an expert in the field. Thanks for responding, Matthew Yeager 13:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I added some valuable, helpful comments for you
Here on this page Talk:NeuroElectric Therapy

By going editing the discussion / talk page above, you can see the tags used for the various article entry types. The same can be done whenever you find another article with some fancy formatting that you might want included in your own contributions.

I hope that this helps.

Please look at what happened to my contributions to the Electromagnetic therapy article by looking at the talk page and the article history when the article was much bigger, and I asked for help with improving it. At one time the article was 39+ kbytes, now it is 3 k or so not because I wanted it to be, but because I asked for expert help and the wrong people showed up to do their deletions (I mean 'contributions').

The very same gang members may come knocking on your contributions. Then they lurk on every contribution that you make in order to possibly delete them too.

Another example of deletionists at work is the Royal Rife article. The article was at one time quite extensive and explained many more of the historical details involved, but different deletionists came in, wave after wave, used conflicting editing goals, ransacked the article, and now the reader only gets a "Point of View" (POV) message that Rife was a quack who made false claims. But these editors deleted all of the article text that demonstrated that Rife was fine. Few of these editors actually helped by adding reliable source reference citations. Most deleted anything that they objected to that was not in current main stream science and allopathic medicine doctrine. All mention of recent reproductions of Rife's work was deleted.

The Georges Lakhovsky article is another example of deletionists chiseling away at an article until it really says nothing except what currently held main stream science and medical dogma 'allows.' Oldspammer 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Blood electrification article is up for deletion by deletionists
Deletionist WP editors have elected the Blood electrification and sister Bioelectrification articles to be deleted.

The argument is being used that Blood electrification has not been publicized in the mainstream media or scientific / medical journals sufficiently so is "not notable" a.k.a. WP:notability.

Also they claim that patent documentation is not a reliable source and never check the documents to see if these cite scientific journal articles as part of their basis for patent claims. Thereby, none of these deletionist contributors want to enhance the article by providing any WP:RS reference links. Furthermore, waves of these editors edit the article with different mindsets / agendas as to what they consider acceptable coverage and scope of references usable, otherwise even WP:RS sources are deleted as having been seen by individual editors as being associated, but not exactly addressing specifically microcurrents, or blood, or specific pathogen types, and so on. The article is trimmed down so much that it shrinks to non-existence--as is the initial intent by these editors with any bioelectric alternative medicine articles since their point of view (POV) is that electromedicine is quackery without exception.

Voting is done by following the deletion tag link and contributing to the deletion voting discussions. You can read the article, examine the article history, view earlier versions, view / contribute to the talk page for Blood electrification, then visit the Articles for deletion page (Afd page) for the article linked from the tags placed on the article.

All of the mainstream scentist and medical type people are voting for deletion as is their usual thing with alternative medicine pieces. Your input would be welcome. Oldspammer (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)