User talk:Prof.helios

Welcome!
Hello, Prof.helios, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Coitus reservatus did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Introduction tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Introduction to referencing
 * Help pages
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thanks for the words. :) Not sure what was missing in my contributions as I did add reliable sources. I guess I should have kept a copy of my addition so as to add to the weight of my present words. :)
 * The present text has some major flaws. I have been teaching about coitus reservatus for over 40 years.
 * For example, this small paragraph has so many problems: "Control of ejaculation is contained in Taoist sexual practices (known as "cai Yin pu Yang" and "cai Yang pu Yin"), as well as Indian Tantra (known as "asidhārāvrata") and Hatha Yoga (see vajroli mudra), although conventional ejaculation is also endorsed."
 * No, in Taoist sexual practices it is really not only known as the words in parentheses.
 * The next sentence is missing the word "in". It should say "as well as in Indian Tantra.
 * Then it should not say that it is knows as asidharavrata, as if it was the ONLY practice.
 * Asidharavrata (the practice of the sword's edge) is only one among many such practices in India Tantra and is even not that well known or important !
 * Then the text says to see Vajroli Mudra for a similar practice in Hatha Yoga. Again, not a good reference as Vajroli Mudra is NOT a sexual practice with continence and how it is really done is highly debated. Therefore, it should say something like "See Vajroli Mudra for a somewhat related practice".
 * Then the sentence goes to say that conventional ejaculation is also endorsed... Well, no. Not when discussing practices related with coitus reservatus. Ejaculation is only considered a possible interpretation of certain Kaula Tantric rituals IF someone will take the sanskrit description literally, which is highly debated.
 * Here, I only questioned one paragraph. I could go on and on about the rest. But it seems that maybe the text I wrote to correct the present errors was not adequate?
 * Thanks for any help in rectifying this text properly and any other wiki text on similar topics. :) Prof.helios (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You did not WP:CITE any WP:SOURCES. The WP:BURDEN is upon you. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that part. :)
 * My point is that it is also rather obvious that the existing text is poorly written and draws generalizations based on one single practice without saying so.
 * Citin"cai Yin pu Yang" and "cai Yang pu Yin" as THE coitus reservatus practice in Taoist sexual practices is an immense blunder. At least the text should name this practice as ONE of the practices of Taoism
 * The same can be said about Asidharavrata which is written as if it is THE practice of Indian Tantra. It should also be said to be just an example.
 * The same with Vajroli Mudra.
 * It's not because the previous author was only able to post ONE link to ONE source about ONE practice that there is only ONE practice related to coitus reservatus in these schools. In that way, this paragraph is extremely deceptive and false.
 * It should therefore seriously be changed.
 * Can you at least change this or let me change the text to indicate each practice is "an example among many"? Until I can list them with proper sources ? :)
 * Thanks Prof.helios (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Nope, WP:OR is banned by website policy. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Not sure we understand each other sadly.
 * I proposed something different. I did not propose to add original research.
 * The present text implies generalizations.
 * It says Coitus reservatus is found in only one way in three major schools of thought.
 * I can't imagine such massive logical fallacies are fine with all WP rules.
 * I suggested correcting what are false conclusions/deductions in the way the present text is written. Prof.helios (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not trust people (i.e. editors), it trusts WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)