| Revision as of 07:06, 29 July 2010 editEdith Sirius Lee (talk | contribs)667 edits →Policy← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:14, 31 July 2010 edit undoDoc James (talk | contribs)Administrators312,257 edits →Notes for myselfNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| Considered for help ] ] (]) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | Considered for help ] ] (]) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ==This comment== | |||
| In this edit you removed well referenced content stating "i.e., not found in the peer-reviewed version and only an interpretation against TM of a point already included.)". It is found on the page mentioned. Thus please restore the content. Also I would like to bring your attention to this ArbCom finding which this edit contravenes. ] (] · ] · ]) 22:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:14, 31 July 2010
Welcome!
Hello, Edith Sirius Lee, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Will Beback talk 20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Notes for myself
Krisanaprakornkit and his team studied only meditation practices that could be used in clinical settings. "Meditation as a part of religious or spiritual practice wasn't considered to be meditation therapy," he said. http://www.wellsphere.com/meditation-article/meditate-your-anxiety-away/369 Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
There were only two studies included in the review and only one of these two was about TM. See http://thediabeticnews.com/news/860.shtml . The only included study on TM seems to be http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6986134?dopt=Abstract . Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Considered for help User:JamesBWatson Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
This comment
In this edit you removed well referenced content stating "i.e., not found in the peer-reviewed version and only an interpretation against TM of a point already included.)". It is found on the page mentioned. Thus please restore the content. Also I would like to bring your attention to this ArbCom finding which this edit contravenes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)