Talk:Mind Dynamics

fictional movie
A review of a fictional movie which has a character in it that went to an EST seminar and possibly may have died from fright.. is a reliable source related to Mind Dynamics, how? This is another example of the biased editing of this article and tactics of throw-enough-at-the-wall and something might stick or at least keep people busy disputing it. Lsi john 05:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nakend Weekend, review, Roger Ebert
 * Please stop with the false assertions and clear violations of WP:NPA. It is a review of a movie based on the methodology of Mind Dynamics.  The review itself is not used as a source, rather is in the external links section.  Smee 07:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I do not see where any 'person' was mentioned. That alone removes it from your claim of a WP:NPA attack. And you need to stop WP:NPA attacking me by repeatedly falsely claiming that I am WP:NPA attacking you. My statements are related to and cite facts. Lsi john 13:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your claims of "biased editing of this article" are inappropriate. Simply focus on specific issues you have related to content, not contributors.  Every single sentence and fact is backed up by one or more citations from reputable secondary sourced citations.  Smee 20:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
 * 26 citations, to be precise (so far). Smee 20:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Respectfully, Smee, he shouldn't suggest you're editing with a motive of bias but neither is it wrong to suggest someone is writing with a POV. Maybe you should read it too: "Equally, accusing someone of making a personal attack is not something that should be done lightly"  Joevanisland 08:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I have read it. And it is clearly against WP:NPA to comment on contributors constantly, as opposed to engaging a discussion regarding content.  Smee 08:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC).


 * If there is bias or POV in an article, that is part of its content.
 * Where is this user commenting on you constantly? In archive? Joevanisland 08:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Large Group Awareness Training is an NPOV term
The term Large Group Awareness Training has been used mostly by scholars, psychologists, psychiatrists and other academics in academic journals and even defined in psychology textbooks. It is therefore appropriate in the lead. Smee 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * LGAT is generally used by POV authors that are opposed to such groups and "human potential training" is used more generally by NPOV sources. We use the NPOV, please. --Justanother 17:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How have you come to this conclusion? Is this your personal opinion, or did you peruse the sources in secondary reputable sourced citations, from academic journal articles written by psychiatrists and psychologists and other academics on the subject?  Because I did, and the term is supported and defined in those journals and in scholarly studies, one that won an award from the American Psychiatric Association, and even in psychology textbooks.  Smee 17:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Discussion of the biased use of the LGAT term is recent on the LGAT talk page. You know that. The fact that NPOV sources use "human potential training" is borne out by my experience reading reliable 3rd-party material. --Justanother 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Smee 18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Please see cited sources for this at Talk:Holiday Magic.
 * The 2 main points:
 * 1) A study called: "Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training" won an award from the American Psychiatric Assocation.
 * 2) This study was partly funded by Werner Erhard and Associates, therefore they were aware of the term's use with regard to their phenomenon.
 * Quick Google test: "large group awareness"+training = 21,800 vs. "human potential"+training = 709,000 . Google tests are not the best but are good indicators. You can also run the test as "large group awareness training" = 19,700 vs. "human potential movement" = 82,500. Let's look at books. "Large group awareness training" = 49  vs. "human potential movement" = 709 . So the fact that you cite a few books proves little. --Justanother 18:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Holiday Magic for a more detailed discussion. Google tests are generally discouraged in AFDs, in favor of citing reputable secondary sourced citations.  Smee 18:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Removing tags

 * Removing the unbalanced tag as per above, the user has not iterated specifically what is unbalanced, or specifically what should be added to the article from which secondary reputable sources.
 * Removing quotefarm tag, quotes are incorporated into the article and sentences/paragraphs themselves - there is zero blockquoting used within the article so it does not break up the page and reads nicely. Smee 17:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC).


 * User:Lsi john, what about this article is unbalanced in your opinion? Smee 06:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

This article is a collection of "quotes" from one paragraph to the next excerpts and quotes are taken from citable sources to the point that it is not an article but a collection of quotes. Lsi john 06:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire article reads as "this person cited it as .. this person said it was .. " Its not an encyclopedia article, its a collection of quotes. Lsi john 06:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That does not make it a "quotefarm". The quotes are used tastefully.  Larger quotes are given inside the citations themselves in the "References" section, rather than blockquoted and breaking up the article.  The quotes and citations from (31) reputable secondary sourced citations flow from one to the next, backing up the material in question.  Smee 06:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * In fact, many academic journal articles will often use this methodology for writing articles, to show that they are drawing on the opinions and writings of many academics and scholars. Smee 06:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * This is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal. Articles should look like articles, hence the tag that says this looks like a quote farm and not an article and the request that it be written in the style of an encyclopedia article and not a collection of citable quotes. Lsi john 06:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedias can also take the tack of an academic journal, it shows a higher scholarly standard. Smee 06:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Is that your opinion, or is that a citable fact? Lsi john 06:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Both. But for the time being, the tags can remain.  No worries, the article will still be expanded upon with ever more references to reputable secondary sourced citations.  Smee 06:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Quotefarm
--User:Krator (t c) 13:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I added back in the quotefarm template.
 * There are simply too many quotes in the article. 25 in total, for just eleven paragraphs. This is not good for an encyclopaedia article.
 * Paraphrase your sources and references, don't just quote them. If they can't be paraphrased in a neutral way, they probably are not a good source.
 * Krator, thank you. I too agree that while they are sources, they are not good sources. This article is basically a collection of quotes and citations, in an effort to document a pov under wiki rules so that it can't be labled POV. Lsi john 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Krator, thank you for this opinion. While I may not agree with it, I can see your reasoning, and I will paraphrase as many of the sources as I can.  I am sure that if you look at the actual (33) secondary sourced citations you will note that they are quite reputable and cited appropriately.  Smee 19:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I appreciate the willingness of User:Smee to improve the article.
 * This template has nothing to do with the sources of the quotes.
 * In fact, this tag has nothing to do with WP:RS at all. I never wrote that the sources were lacking in number, not-reputable or not cited appropriately.
 * The reason for the template simply is that an article with this many quotes does not look, read and feel like an encyclopaedia article, and therefore needs to be improved.
 * I hope it is understood that other articles in the series on LGAT are subject to the same reasoning. It would take a lot of effort to simply tag them all, and only a small number of users is actively editing these articles, and have probably read the message on this page. I would appreciate coordination between editors to structurally reduce the number of quotes in all related articles.
 * Several messages related to this issue were left on my talk page. I would prefer to keep discussion limited to this page only, or the other page related.
 * -User:Krator (t c) 21:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, thank you for being so civil and kind, and acknowledging of the work that has already gone into this article. I will work on it more as you have suggested.  Smee 21:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Embroiled?
Is it possible we could word these paragraphs to be a tiny bit more hostile toward Mind Dynamics? I do not believe that any legal decision included the word EMBROILED. If someone 'said they were embroiled' then that is how the paragraph must read "xyz said they became embroiled' .. an author's opinion doesnt make it fact it makes it something he said. Please fix these statements, unless you'd prefer that I help out. Lsi john 05:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Attribution is given to the source. You could have checked the source of the reputable secondary citation yourself.  Please avoid the use of CAPS, and please attempt to take a more civil tone on the project.  Thank you.  Smee 06:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I agree with the tag and some of the issues here. The article reads as a dismissal of Mind Dynamics, about which I know absolutely nothing from reading the opening of this article except some of the editors here probably don't like it very much. That opinion may be well founded, but I shouldn't know that until the talk page.


 * I think jumping right to what MD led to in its first sentence loses neutrality for me right there, because you're not really identifying what MD is, and without doing that, your making it easier for the reader to dismiss it later. You might not frame it that way on purpose, but it does lead to it reading unbalanced to me. No substance to the definition = no weight for the reader. If they don't grasp it, they have no investment so they'll look to the writing for suggestion through tone.  We should consider whether you're supplying that tone through use of detail and sentence juxtaposition.


 * I appreciate the work done here, but at least the lead should get quick attention. Tell me what Mind Dynamics is, what it says, how it sees itself, and then lay out the facts that counter this if those facts show that approach to be balanced. Joevanisland 09:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will work on improving the lead, and implementing all your suggestions.  Smee 19:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Your thanks and civility are appreciated and will be matched at any cost. I don't have personal thoughts on what this article should say, only on how it should be presented, and I'm grateful for your perception that I'm not a threat to either side here because of this.
 * I also wish to distinctly acknowledge the tremendous effort involved in the gathering of all the references here. I wish no disrespect to your work through any edits I'd suggest, and understand that the investment you've made here would lead anyone to reasonable, protective reactions. Own your effort, and I'd fight for you anywhere; own the article and I will do more than suggest a bias!  Joevanisland 21:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. I will strive to follow up with your suggestions.  Smee 21:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Sorry Smee, gotta dash out of town for 2 days. Hope we get somewhere with this issue and can be nice to one another. Food for thought, though, there's a whole lotta links and terms in that lead that are going to have to move or go to make room for a more encyclopedic introduction.  Plus other significant views and results have to be in the lead if they're verifiable, right?  Respectfully, too, on that legal stuff, there's no clear sense if there were convictions, or what the endings were to these "resquests" and actions.  And is it fair to cite as "still seeking" a 1975 source?  If they're still seeking it now, cite that source and say it, but you gotta admit that one might be a bit  lame.  Think it over, and I'll help, and I respect that legal actions aren't thrown about lightly, so what you're saying there has some weight.  It just seems to me that if what your inferring from those legal actions belongs here, it belongs out in the open with sources.  Cheers. Joevanisland 08:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening Statement / Paragraph
The opening paragraph seemed to lead the reader to a conclusion and did not stick to short and concise relevant facts.

The fluffy and opinion items about what led to what and who created what and who had to do what, was moved to the relevant sections of the main article.

Please keep the 'leading' (and potentially misleading) details in the main article and allow the opening remarks to be a clean snippet.

LGAT and HPM and other tags and labels are opinions of individuals and are not strictly factual. It is relevant to include them in the main article but not in the opening remarks. Lsi john 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Popped in from afar, have to say you're restoring my faith in WP. You should be commended for leaving "embroiled" and the legal mention in the lead.  This is such a nice "dispute",  as your both such reasonable people!  Be back Wed. or Thurs. Joevanisland 04:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have changed the subject heading of this section from ALL CAPS. Please do not use CAPS in this fashion, it is most distracting.  Smee 06:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC).


 * The current lead is good. Good job. --User:Krator (t c) 08:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you!!! Smee 18:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Got busy IRL, sorry can't help much right now. Smee does not like CAP SHOUTING, and as we are all entitled to pet peeves, she has mentioned this many times, and it's so easy to avoid, perhaps we can all pledge to keep fingers off that pesky Shift button unless unavoidable. I for one will resist my tendency toward excessive mark-up. Joevanisland 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Smee 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

I see some improvement in this article. Thanks.

The wording in the first paragraph is still a little confusing. Rewording it would actually solve two issues:
 * 1) Wording is confusing due to the labels.
 * 2) LGAT is not really the focus here and is already mentioned below.

How about:

"'Mind Dynamics was a seminar company, founded by Alexander Everett in Texas in 1968, that led[4] to two other training organizations: est and Lifespring'"

If a label is really necessary, HPM better reflects a movement rather than LGAT which really describes a type of training, not the companies themselves.

"'Mind Dynamics was a seminar company, founded by Alexander Everett in Texas in 1968, that purportedly led[4] to two other organizations in the human potential movement: est and Lifespring'"

Lsi john 20:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good points. I will try to incorporate them.  Smee 21:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

Work in progress tag

 * I have added the work in progress tag, and have begun to paraphrase quotations, obviously leaving the highly reputabe secondary sourced citations that still back up the now paraphrased information. Please respect the tag.  Smee 07:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I have paraphrased some of the quotations, as suggested, and incorporated some ideas from User:Lsi john as well. Please comment here, as to the removal of the quotefarm tag.  Smee 07:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Please don't unilaterally revert edits and re-write things, without a concensus. The edits were made and reasons were given. By re-writing and re-including text, which has been objected to, it only slows down the process and increases frustration and tension.
 * Specifically, the title of Navarro's book was removed as being unnecessary and misleading. There is no objection to including the reference, however the term 'phenomenon' in the title adds a bias to the article/statment which is unnecessary. Neither the book itself, nor the phenomenon were specifically about Mind Dynamics. The title adds no significant value to the article and serves to add an unjust prejudice to the article. Re-including it unilaterally without discussion is inappropriate. Lsi john 15:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that there was a book and movie written about Mind Dynamics is highly notable and should remain in the lead. Smee 18:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Which you put back unilaterally, without discussing and without concensus and thus not WP:FAITH but more like WP:TE and WP:BOX. Lsi john 04:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the removal of the information was a unilateral move by yourself. Chicken before the egg in this instance.  Get your facts straight.  The information is highly notable, and should remain in the lead.  Smee 05:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

Because the book/movie in question takes as its subject the movement spawned by/from MD and the philosphies behind this type of "therapy", but is not inclusive to MD, I don't see why it would belong in the lead. If it were purely a piece of investigative journalism on the company Mind Dynamics, it would belong, but it isn't in so far as I can tell. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not, it belongs but surely not in the lead. Joevanisland 20:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and please communicate what the seminars are about in the inital sentences. Saying it "led" to capitalized terms not defined in the lead still leaves a neutral reader lost.  Clicking links is great for further perspective, but an encylopedic article should be self-contained insofaras what the heck it's about and I, at least, still have no idea (well, I do, but not from the words of that lead yet). As to above disagreement, I might be missing a step but it looks like Lsi John was bold, Smee reverted, so now we discuss.  The bold wasn't wrong, the revert wasn't wrong, further reverts would be.  Agree, not agree? Joevanisland 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you know more than I do - I've given numerous opinions on the behaviour of editors and the outlook of the article in this case, but the information is completely unclear. Remember, Wikipedia is first and foremost about writing a good informative article. An NPOV article is not automatically informative. --User:Krator (t c) 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for further iterating these points, Joevanisland. I will endeavour to correct these 2 issues.  However, a book and a film that concern directly the material and employees of this company, do seem directly relevant as to be included in the Lead Section ...  Smee 22:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

Removed quotefarm tag...

 * I had removed the "quotefarm" tag. I had worked on this a lot and forgot to remove the tag. I left in place the "unbalanced" tag... Smee 13:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Apparently another editor feels this "quotefarm" tag still needs to remain. I will work some more on paraphrasing the remaining quotes, and come back to this later...  Smee 13:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I have further paraphrased the rest of the vast majority of the quotations. Please point out here any further specific suggestions related to specific quotations.  Smee 13:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
 * User:Lsi john, this is getting ridiculous. You are reverting without commenting at all  here on the talk page.  That is hypocritical.  Smee 13:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Actually you are the one reverting the quotefarm tag. It is still not your place to unilaterally remove the quotefarm tag. Per WP:BRD a concensus is needed once you have been reverted. For that, other editors need time to read the changes, and evaluate their position. Please do not remove the quotefarm tag again until the other editors have had a chance to comment on the article changes. You are not discussing, you are unilaterally dictating that you have corrected the problem. Lsi john 14:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you do not deny that you reverted multiple times without once discussing on the talk page, whilst I was here asking for your input??? Interesting.  Smee 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

3rd Opinion
Filling request from WP:3O:

The quotefarm tag seems justified to me. A large percentage of the quoted phrases don't need to be in quotes. They read as if that part of the sentence is potentially controversial, and often times the sentences simply aren't. Take, for example, the sentence, "Mind Dynamics has been called a "major forerunner" of large group awareness trainings." There is absolutely no need for quotation marks here. No one is going to question that they've been called a major forerunner (as an aside, though, it might be a good thing to explicitly state who's saying it instead of merely adding the source at the end). Simões ( talk/contribs ) 05:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback and for taking the time to come look. Best Regards. Lsi john 15:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback and your specific example of the use of quotes, where this is cited. I will remove the quotes in this instance.  It is true, the tags will likely be removed in the long-term, so they can stay for now... Smee 07:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Smee, it is most gratious of you to permit the tags to stay for now.
 * "' so they can stay for now...'-Smee"
 * I look forward to the day that you respect my opinions enough to accept them without calling for 3O. Thank you. Lsi john 14:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As I put the quotefarm tag on the page, I am pleased with the current state of the article. The use of quotes is much decreased. Some sections however, remained a farm for quotations. I have removed the quotefarm tag together with an edit to clean up remaining unneeded quoations. --User:Krator (t c) 17:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, most appreciated. Please comment here on what you think needs further work.  Smee 14:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Unbalanced Tag
The unbalanced tag is asking other editors to help contribute towards balancing the tag.

Please do not remove it until the article contains a balance.

Thanks. Lsi john 19:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You, User:Lsi john, added the Unbalanced tag. The burden is on you to provide citations on what you believe to be neglected viewpoints.  You have not done this, for 16 days.  The Unbalanced tag does not just get to sit there because one editor believes that it should.  The burden is on you.  Please see User:Jossi's comments, at Talk:The New Believers.  The tag stays removed.  Thanks.  Smee 19:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC).


 * The tag is a request for other contributors to help provide other material to help balance the article. Please do not drag your fights with Jossi into this article. Lsi john 19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have asked for a neutral comment on this. This has nothing to do with anything that you believe to be a "fight" with Jossi.  It has directly to do with Jossi's statement that the burden is on the editor placing the unbalanced tag, not the other way around.  Please remove the tag now.  Thanks.  Smee 19:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Who's tag was unbalanced in that article? Yours? Just a guess. Your unbalance tag was forced off. And now you are going to try using that logic here, and pick a fight with me. Lsi john 19:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jumping yet again to a 3O. Without even trying to compromise or work this out. Its either your way, or 3O. We didn't even discuss a 3O. Lsi john 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any objections to the way that I phrased the request for 3O? Are you not glad that I asked for 3O, instead of restoring the tag?  Use of "Unbalanced" tag, at article Mind Dynamics.  I do not know how I could have worded this any more neutrally.  Smee 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I object to your constant repeated use of 3O instead of working WITH other editors, regardless of how you word it. We have 1 or 2 statements each where we disagree, and you jump straight to 3O without even trying to work it out. Lsi john 19:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First you try edit warring, and then you jump to 3O. That is NOT evidence of a cooperative editor. Lsi john 19:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am not using 3O to avoid edit warring. I am using 3O to avoid conflict with an editor that has used impolite language in the past.  I would much rather hear comment, even if it is against my viewpoints, from a neutral editor in a polite manner, than comments, even if they are in support at times of my viewpoints, in an impolite manner.  Smee 19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Comments by Smee
Please see comments by User:Jossi, at Talk:The New Believers. Per Jossi's comments, even if one editor believes an article to be "Unbalanced", it is the burden of that editor to add citations from reputable sources on what that editor believes to be the neglected viewpoints. Barring that, if no citations on that viewpoint exist, and as the burden is on the editor who placed the tag, the tag should not remain on the article. Smee 19:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
 * In essence, I am also asking for a clarification here from a neutral editor, and that the exact same logic and reasoning regarding the placement of "Unbalanced" tags, be applied to both articles, and at that, to all articles. In this instance, either I can put an "Unbalanced" tag at the article The New Believers, because I feel that that article is unbalanced and does not have enough criticism, or I cannot, because I have not stated specifically why, and not provided any citations to back up my claims there, which I admit I did not.  The same exact reasoning should be applied here.  And as the editor in question has been given due time and not provided citations on what he believes to be a neglected viewpoint, the tag should not remain just because an editor feels that something is unbalanced, without clarifying how with citations.  Smee 19:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
 * An unbalanced tag is added when an editor considers that the article is unbalanced. If that editor cannot find counterpoints to balance the article within a reasonable period of time, then the tag should be removed as it is only an unsubstantiated opinion of the editor. This would apply to other dispute tags as well, such as POV, for example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jossi. As a reasonable period of time has elapsed with the tag in place, namely, nearly 20 days, I will remove the tag.  Smee 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Thank you also, Jossi, for providing this clarification in a straightforward and polite manner, discussing content, instead of any particular individual contributors. This behaviour is much appreciated.  Smee 20:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for providing this comprehensive clarification, in a most polite manner. Yours, Smee 21:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Third opinion - There exist no firm policies on how long tags should remain on an article or under what circumstances to remove them. That said, one may distinguish between tags of a factual nature - such as unsourced and tags of an interpretive nature, such as unbalanced.  Factual tags should not be removed until the deficiency has been resolved, whereas there should be a reasonable limit of time that other tags can remain on an article with no change.  Again, no firm policies on "how long is appropriate" exist, but in my opinion I would say one month is sufficient time - if no alterations have been made to the article in an attempt to resolve the percieved deficiency, it demonstrates a lack of interest by the community and no consensus that said deficiency exists, and the tag may be removed.  One cannot wait indefinitely for tags to fix an article, and if the dispute about it still exists, a better solution is to seek broader community input via the dispute resolution process.  For what it is worth, it is often a good idea to elaborate on the nature of the problem in the article talk page rather than tagging with boilerplate text, particularly when it is an obviously contentious issue.  Good luck,  Ark yan  • (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you to Arkyan
 * Although there are not firm rules on this, I would argue that an article that is actively being edited, one month wait-period may be excessive. In these cases, a week or so would be sufficient. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. And in this case the article had not been edited at all for (16) days before I removed the tag.  Smee 03:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

LGAT / Human Potential movement

 * User:Lsi john, please put back the highly sourced information that you removed, from this DIFF. This is highly notable information, and belongs in the lead, and it is backed up by multiple citations within the article.  Smee 02:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Mind Dynamics, along with Leadership Dynamics, was one of THE very first forms of Large Group Awareness Training. As such, this is highly notable to the article and deserves to be in the Lead.  Smee 02:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Smee you continue to edit war with me rather than discuss. You have promised on 3RR numerous times to stop edit warring and yet you continue. Only AFTER you get reported, do you suddenly self-revert and then come here to discuss things. Lsi john 02:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So, are you refusing to discuss what I have raised above at all? Smee 02:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Okay, you are refusing to discuss the issues I have raised above, just so we are clear, most interesting. Smee 00:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Again, sir, I'm programming and trying to earn a living. Unfortunately I do not have 24 hours per day free time, as it appears that you do. Your judgments about what I am or am not doing are rude and unfair. Please do not judge what I am or am not doing. Thank you. AGF remember? Lsi john 00:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You do not like it when I conclude that you are only googling and not verifying sources, I request that you do not conclude whether or not I am refusing. Unless you want to be clear about both my refusal and your lack of fact checking??? your call, smee. You decide how we play this. Lsi john 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I do not "sit here" 24/7, and my question to you is not rude, it is a clarification. It has been over 24 hours since my inquiry to you about this, and you have not responded.  However, your recent impolite response to me, speaks volumes.  And out of hundreds of citations submitted on articles, yes, I will make some mistakes from time to time.  I am not perfect, I am human.  However, I do not respond well if this is pointed out impolitely, but respond rather well if it is pointed out politely, on a talk page.  Smee 00:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
 * You did not ask a question. You made a statement. *Okay, you are refusing to discuss the issues I have raised above, just so we are clear, most interesting. Smee 00:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC). There is no question in that statement sir. It was a very very rude thing to say. Lsi john 00:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And if you cannot talk politely, then do not speak to me at all until you can. Thank you. Lsi john 00:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Notice the first part was a question, and then no response for 24 hours.  I will strike out that remark, I am sorry, it was inappropriate.  Smee 00:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I am currently working on a big project and my schedule for the next few days will be quite hectic. I would appreciate if you would wait. I don't think this is a life and death crisis. However, if you can't wait, then I reserve the right to address it in a few days. Lsi john 03:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Understandable, I will try to wait, unless I find a bunch more reputable secondary sourced citations. Smee 04:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

Taking a break

 * I'm going to take a break from this article I had initially created and added (34) citations to, in order to focus on other things, including new article creation. It will be interesting to come back in a while and see the article's progression/digression.  Smee 21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC).


 * I find the previous comment by Smee, as well as article talk-page comments here, here, here and here, to be very presumptuous, in very Bad Faith, and personally offensive.


 * Based on that, I incorrectly deleted some of them as disruptive. Having since been told that they are not considered to be disruptive, I have restored the comments. Smee, I apologize for inappropriately deleting your comment.


 * And, as I am actively editing these articles, and as Smee has now implied, in several places, that valid citations have been (and will continue to be) inappropriately removed, and that the articles may go through a digression, and thus indirectly attacked my editing, it should be noted that Smee has a past history of adding invalid, inaccurate and poorly cited material, making his citations suspect IMO.


 * In PSI Seminars, it appeared that Smee was more intent on fulfilling promises made in an AfD here and here, to bring the (unnotable) article back with a sufficient quantity of sources, than he was in getting quality (or even relevant) sources.


 * It seems that Smee googled the words "psi seminars" and only read the google 'snippet', in order to qualify the sources as relevant. From this, he added a completely unrelated source to the article here. And, when challenged with a very clear edit comment here, Smee reverted (and improved) the unrelated reference here. Choosing not to edit-war, I tagged here, which Smee promptly reverted here, and justified it on the talk page here.


 * Ultimately I had to pay for the article, in order to read it all, and found that, in fact, it was not about PSI Seminars, but instead was about seminars put on by a school: Public Service Institute, for $2.50 each.


 * Smee repeatedly denies any wrong doing, and claims that it was an honest mistake. I might possibly agree, were it not for the fact that Smee knew that he had not read the full article, and yet he failed to assume good faith on my part, and reverted my clearly commented edits twice, in order to maintain his well sourced material.


 * At Talk:Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training, Smee has also implied that 5 sources have been inappropriately removed: here. Even though the article edit history clearly explains why the material was removed here.


 * Smee declares authorship of Mind Dynamics here, again listing the number of references and implying that the article will digress.


 * In another case, at Large Group Awareness Training, Smee took an exact and specific quotation and replaced it with the weasel words "has been said", and changed the citation away from the source here.


 * At List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations, a secondary source and a primary source, were both listed throughout the article, which I corrected here. Smee quickly re-added it as an WP:EL here. Note, that article is a List, not an article (or information) about LGAT.


 * In a BIO about William Penn Patrick, I removed an inappropriate category here, clearly citing BLP violation, and Smee promptly replaced the category with  here, forcing me to get BLP opinion in order to remove the inappropriate category.


 * I have also had to remove numerous violations of WP:COPY throughout the LGAT series.


 * Based on the above (and many more examples), as well as this editors tenacious 3RR history as Smee blocklog1 and Smeelgova blocklog2, I find his above suggestion to be very presumptuous, in bad faith, to be implying ownership and simply rude.


 * Lsi john 01:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow dude. Posting the same exact message at multiple places to disparage me.  Most interesting.  You are assuming bad faith and misinterpreting my intentions, which was to note the citations for future other editors.  Oh well.  Have fun editing the article.  Smee 02:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Disparage? Not at all. It was in response to your suggestion that sources were disappearing and that the articles will digress. You posted virtually the same message in 4 articles (and now the same response), so I posted the same response. Future editors do not need a link to your preferred version, the edit history is permenant and anyone can 'go back' and see what was added or removed. At best, your posting arrogantly implied your version was better, at worst it was an attack on other editor's abilities and intentions. Have a nice break. Lsi john 02:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)