User talk:Encyclojonny

October 2014
Hello, I'm Ronz. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. See also WP:COI in case it might apply. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Ronz! Did you write the original Reiki page? I think you erased all of my contributions - not just a few? Wouldn't it not have been more fair to remove whichever aspect you felt was too promotional about the wording, without removing the information? Or could you have simply added a "citation needed" if you felt that was the case? Currently there are several places in the existing page where it would be fair to do the same. I'm new here hence the questions.


 * I absolutely do respect your concern, though, and I will try to reword the contributions in a way that sound less promotional, since i'm here to provide accurate information not promote a business- but how would you recommend doing that when there is relevant information to share, coming from a respected and certified source without citing him directly? I can see how linking back to his website might sound promotional, but what other option is there? I am new to Wikipedia so possibly there is another way for me to recreate my comments which would be more acceptable to you so that they don't get erased each time i make them?


 * What do you need in order to be more amenable to my edits? Can we work together in some way?


 * Other points to consider -
 * Some of the information on the Reiki page is already to some extent promotional - like the mention of traditions which have followed Usui as well as Western traditions. The Siam Reiki School (and probably many others) has earned a place of mention there and belongs in the list of branches which have stemmed from Traditional Reiki practices - not Western.


 * When it comes to Reiki levels - it is relevant and important for readers to know that there is a clear difference between Western Reiki's 3 levels and Traditional Reiki's more advanced requirements for Master Teachers and beyond. This particular issue is a major dividing line between traditional and non traditional methods.


 * Overall the Reiki world is known for misinformation, variations on the history, new symbols, and / or statements which confuse far older healing traditions with Reiki itself. It is also heavily based on 'claims' - regardless if those claims are published in books or transferred orally. So whose claims should be published / considered? Siam Reiki founder worked for years to verify that the symbols passed on to him in his Reiki path are the same ones that were used in Japan by Master Usui. How many traditional Reiki practitioners can do the same? His practice has also been approved and accepted by the Usui Reiki Ryōhō Gakkai, and several people under his care have recovered completely from cancer. There is an integrative medicine hospital in Asia who has been involved in researching the effectiveness of Reiki using Steve and one of his master teachers. He has developed every single level of his curriculum and helps others to do the same. He has an assessment procedure for Reiki practitioners to identify if the correct amount of energy is passing through them. All of these statements can be verified. He is also working toward a book and collaborating with others who are interested in setting international standards - not for personal gain but for clearing the name of Reiki and helping a lot of people who could benefit from medical systems which are open to incorporating it.

Encyclojonny (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't reply earlier. It would be best to take this discussion to the article talk page, Talk:Reiki. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)