User talk:Zephyr22

I dispute your claim that my work on Consciousness-based healthcare is vandalism. You claim on the talk page to be aligned with it, and appear to be using the article to foster credibility for it. As I said in the page history, the material in the current article is not encyclopaedic, and is outwith the scope of Wikipedia. I appreciate that I reduced the size of the article, and perhaps made the tone a little critical, but I believe that the previous version I worked on has more in it.

Regards.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Jamesx12345,

Your "work" on the Consciousness-based healthcare (CBH) page consisted of deleting a wealth of well-documented material and adding nothing but a questionable source that discounted Reiki (a modality that was not even mentioned in the original article). Destroying something of value because one does not understand or agree with it is, in my estimation, vandalism. I was going to report it as such, but when I researched Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, I saw that it did not fit. So, I undid the change where I had marked the reason as reparation of vandalism and restored the page with another comment. My intention was to delete the comment about vandalism, but it stayed in the History.

As I said on the Talk page, I have a lot of knowledge about CBH and created the page with the expectation that others would expand upon it in constructive ways, which may include adding well-documented information that is not supportive of the efficacy of CBH. I cannot add such information because I don't have it. After I restored the page, I reviewed it and removed information that was not encyclopedic and also made it clearer that CBH has not been accepted by medical authorities.

The "editing" you performed is exactly the type of action that discredits Wikipedia as a credible source of information. If someone assesses that an article is not well-rounded, the way to address this is to *add to* the existing information, not to delete it because you don't agree with it but cannot find reputable sources to counter it. This type of action has a name - it's called CENSORSHIP.

Zephyr22 (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Zephyr22