Talk:Synergy

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Removing tags, blank edit summaries

When you are ready to behave professionally, let me know and I'll unprotect the page. I have no special connection to this article, but removing the tags without an explanation is disruptive. El_C 04:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please consider registering an account instead of, confusingly, hopping from IP to IP. El_C 04:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to stop attempting to put some logic into the squabble between religious concepts, art, charlatanry a pinch of science that passes as an entry for Synergy in Wikipedia. The editor has clearly no knowledge nor interest about the subject (he wrote me so) and just applies lazily archaic dogmatic rules without regard to logic, clarity and relevance. I am ashamed to have recommended in innumerable occasion students to check Wikipedia without being aware that many article are badly edited, contain misleading information and rather subtract from the knowledge of the reader. Cheers MercuryTest (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This response comes after several attempts to improve the section on synergy that were deleted without any explanations MercuryTest (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this message is for me, I will try to edit with my login MercuryTest. Sorry if I have coused disruptions. I am new to editing wiki. But the article on synergy is totally biased towards religious cristian fundamentalism promoted by Peter Crorning and I try to provide more scientific alternative views 201.208.118.204 (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Psychokinetically enslaved by the most intuitive man

In the end of its exponentially accelerating hierarchization, the universe's matter becomes psychokinetically enslaved by the most intuitive man. (underline is my emphasis)—This seems like synthesis and, anyway, is too complex for the lead. Psychokinetically enslaved (whatever that supposed to mean) needs to be better explained and better referenced, at the very least, if it even belongs in the article, to to mention the lead. It all seems like undue weight to the concept of synergy. How is the reader to make sense of this in the context of an encyclopedia article? El_C 04:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, "psychokinetically enslaved" is a hyperlink, and people can easily learn what it is. Enslavement is the central notion of synergetics, so it cannot be omitted. 91.122.11.237 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not easily at all. That link to wikiquote serves as a poor explanation (I, at least, have had trouble with it)—if you want to write about synergetics, maybe devote a section to it in the body; and also work to depict it as if you're writing an encyclopedia article, because that's what Wikipedia is. I'm not sure delving into the depths is appropriate for the lead. This article is about the concept of synergy, more broadly. Try to write with the average reader in mind, not as if you're writing for other specialists, like in an academic journal. El_C 05:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The most intuitive man becomes capable of psychokinesis.—Is there scholarly consensus that this amounts to the definition of synergy at its highest form? Because it appears to be, at the very least, undue weight. Synergy has several meanings in English, and it looks like the lead is emphasising, and also synthesising, just one aspect. The lead, especially, remains overspecialised and does not read like an introductory effort into synergy, in all its many forms. El_C 06:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I'm concerned that you've turned the lead into a discussion about Synergetics rather than Synergy. You can't monopolise the article—the way you've been going is not sustainable. I've been far too lenient with you, both your behaviour and your content. El_C 06:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for a response... El_C 08:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the past few days' changes have completely altered the first part of the article into something unrecognizable as a general article on synergy. I would be in favor of reverting back to somewhere around 17 May. Perhaps the editor(s) making these changes can be persuaded that they need to create a new article, disambiguated, for their special sense of synergy. But I agree that it all looks a lot like a mistaken takeover by some version of Synergetics, which has its own problems. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 12:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. Indeed, if the IP behind these massive changes continues to fail to respond to these multiple issues, I suggest we do just that. El_C 15:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still no response from the author. ♫It's getting to the point♪ El_C 06:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I remain in favor of the restoration of the older version. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for a response of the author of this nonsense, see
If they respond, they can be reported there, and blocked. - DVdm (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Synergy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy mention

I do not see any merit in the mentioning of "Synergists" in the Final Fantasy game. The description offers no indication that these characters have anything to do with the concept of synergy. I propose to remove it. I was going to edit but this is still semi-protected at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technokratisch (talk • contribs) 12:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
Yes, by all means be wp:BOLD and remove it, mentioning the lack of sourcing and referring to the talk page in the edit summary. They can always put it back with a proper source. - DVdm (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, semi-protected.  Done: [3]. - DVdm (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy in relationship of all kinds of energy...

Thermal Energy, Dark Energy, Kinetic Energy to work together as synergy of energy, what's this? 112.201.11.90 (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Synergy"