Wikipedia:Editor review/Skywhale

Username
I have been trying to rewrite the article on Pathwork, which was out of date. First, it was tagged as not citing sources, and then it was tagged as sounding like an advertisement. Today is May 10. Within a day or two, I think I can go in and make it a little more neutral than I think it already is. I'm stymied when it comes to sources, though, because by and large, the only sources for any statement one can make about the Pathwork is the Pathwork Lectures themselves. It's obscure stuff, and there hasn't been much of anything written about it. Does that mean it can't be a Wikipedia article? Please help. . . Skywhale 17:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * It seems you are a good user making steady progress but editor reviews are for feedback on your edits, not really for help requests, if you want help on something you could ask at the help desk or add helpme on to your user talk page, hope this review and advice helps. Happy editing! The Sunshine Man 16:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.


 * View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Pathwork is the only one and I'm frustrated with it at the moment
 * 1) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * No conflict
 * No conflict