User talk:Jeffrire

j

Welcome
Thanks Smee Jeffrire 05:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

User page
You may wish to create a User Page. You can just click on the "user page" tab uptop, or invariably also click here to edit. There is some interesting information on User Pages at User page. Here is the list of Userboxes, and this is some Wikipedia information about Userboxes. Yours, Smee 07:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks much Smee Jeffrire 18:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. Smee 21:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

LGAT reputable secondary source citation mentions
You may also wish to comment in the relevant subsection on the talk page of the article Neuro-linguistic programming... Smee 06:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Smee. I sent you an email concerning other information. I plan to take a broader approach to LGAT research. Jeffrire 06:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. As always, the best remedy to providing a "broader approach" to any article or topic, is simply to back up any information/material you may add, and in fact, probably best to back up every single sentence and new fact you plan to add to an article, with multiple citations from reputable sources...  Smee 06:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

knee jerk
Rather than what appears to be a knee jerk revert, would you do me the favor of reading the text of the article?

The same request you made for discussion could also be applied to your major revert.

In my opinion, reverting an entire series of edits, when each one had been documented with the reason, is a bit harsh and rude.

By the end of the series of edits, there were no deleted citations or referenced material.

If I had deleted major sections, or deleted citations, or vandalized the page, certainly a revert would be in order. But could you please give my version a read-through before you just dismiss it out of hand?

In contrast, Smee regularly marks an article as rewrite and then unilaterally rewrites entire sections. Do you recommend that we revert all those edits because she didn't discuss them first?

Thanks. Lsi john 17:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that any controversial edits be discussed. I believe thats a pretty simple and constructive Wikipedia convention. Please refrain from calling me a knee jerk. It can be construed as a personal attack. Jeffrire 03:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the reaction, not to you. I do not call names.
 * I completely agree that controversial edits should be discussed. It is also true that not all edits are known to be controversial until after the edit takes place.
 * Lets take Krator's advice and dig in and edit these articles and create a balance series that fairly reflects both perspectives of the issue. I won't assume you are attacking, challenging or intentionally inserting POV, and you can do the same.. ok? :) thanks. Lsi john 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello
In your recent edit [here] you inadvertently modified another editor's comments.

I went ahead and put the comment back to its original form.

I apologize for the way my edit comment sounded. After I clicked Save, I realized it might sound harsher than intended. I intended it to mean that it is bad form to change another users comments and we should be careful not to do it.

Peace in God. Lsi john 00:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just one of those keyboard glitches I guess. Jeffrire 00:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Landmark Education
Hi Jeffrire

I would like to work constructively with you to improve the Landmark Education article in compliance with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Please let me know how you feel we can resolve the impasse that has developed in the recent discussion on the talk page for that article. With best wishes. DaveApter 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I, too, would like to work constructively to obtain a mutually agreeable resolution to the article. I have opened a new section in the talk page. Hopefully we can all work together and obtain a compromise so that the material you want can be included in a manner that is acceptable to everyone. Thank you. Lsi john 19:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Read WP:NPOV. Also read this section on information suppression . Jeffrire 02:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeffrire, I'm very sorry that you feel that I'm trying to supress your information. The fact is, that couldn't be further from the truth. It's clear that you've misinterpreted my actions and I accept responsibility for not being patient and trying to explain it more carefully.
 * I don't have an objection to including relevant material in an NPOV manner. And, (to my immediate knowledge) I have never deleted your material. I have reverted you, yes, but the reverts were because you and ER were forcefully reinserting old content (and thus deleting article changes) and seemed to be disregarding specific objections from other editors.
 * You can ask many other editors about my NPOV record. If material belongs in an article, I will fight right beside you to keep it in.. but I can't do that if you are seeing me as the enemy.
 * Until recently I was responding with suggestions and constructive comments. Right after you began making personal remarks, I simply switched to repeating your comment that 'the material could be included at any time', but changed it to 'the material can be deleted if it doesnt meet guidelines'. It was productive only in the manner that you did not like being treated exactly the way others were perceiving that you were treating them. However, it was not a producitve method for getting a compromise and for that I apologize.
 * I can see that you are passionate about including your material, and I have no objection to including NPOV material in the article in an appropriate location. However, article discussion should be on the article pages, so I will not go into the details of my ideas here. Suffice to say that I have no desire to stand in the way of including your material. My goal all along has been to achieve a compromise and I have repeatedly stated this in the article discussions.
 * The material can't stay out and the material can't be included with your wording. There must be a compromise and I hope you are able to put the past behind us and move forward and work together to that end.
 * I'm sorry that the friction between us exists and I hope we can move past it and find a way to include the material in a way that is acceptable to everyone. Lsi john 03:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see Landmark Education as the enemy. I am fairly neutral on that matter. I do realise that Landmark Education is a cult though. So I have to accept the cult behavior of its followers and deal with them using calls for blocks and bans, and dispute resolution and so on. Jeffrire 03:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet that does not address the issue between you and I. I have no knowledge (and no pre-conceived views) of Landmark Education, other than what I've read here on wikipedia. Lsi john 03:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is your repeat deletion of well sourced verifiable sources and information that happens to be critical of Landmark Education. Whether others believe your statement of no preconceived notions is another matter. The fact remains Landmark Education is promoted in a cultlike way and as such it is considered to be a cult. Its obvious why some don't want such information in the article. Wikipedians have to use dispute resolution, and banning or blocking proponents in order to deal with information suppression/censorship problems and all the other nasty conflict that unreasonable proponents pull in the name of their own little crusades. Thats the set of facts I have already accepted. Jeffrire 09:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeffrire

Are your comments above intended to be a response to me as well as LsiJohn?

I am a little puzzled by an apparent inconsistency in what you say: ''I don't see Landmark Education as the enemy. I am fairly neutral on that matter.'' If you are "fairly neutral", why are you so active on the Landmark pages? You've been editing on Wikipeda for about a month and have made about 250 edits with maybe 3/4 of them on the LE article or talk page (and most of the rest on the LGAT subject). Almost all your interactions on the article itself are the repeated re-insertion of material which was removed by a number of editors as being poorly supported, irrelevant or biased. You took the trouble to set up sections to discuss these items in the Talk page and several editors repeated in detail their misgivings about the material, but you don't seem to me to have answered their points - just keep repeating over and over again that it is "well sourced" - which is one of the questions being disputed.DaveApter 13:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I find your terse advice above to 'read NPOV' to be patronising and insulting. I am totally committed to the NPOV principle and I am sure that I understand it at least as well as you do. It genuinely appears to me that you are the one who is consistently violating it, and I have explained why at some length. DaveApter 13:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a general interest in cultic studies and pseudoscience. I wish to tackle problems wherever I find them. There is a serious problem on the LE article that needs tackling and I am willing to spend time sorting it out. I made specific and tailored replies to each and every statement or objection offered by proponents. My replies referred directly to NPOV policies. The only answers I got in reply were in fact repeat pastes of the same nagging and unconstructive objection. I have been kindly explaining NPOV policies and that does necessarily require you reading them. For now I don't see you making any constructive suggestions. The situation will be dealt with via dispute resolution. Feel free to continue there with your objections. Jeffrire 15:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User page pic

 * It's beautiful. Smee 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks Smee. And the real joy of it: The roos take care of all the lawn mowing. Jeffrire 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Purple Barnstar
Thank you Smee. I'll endeavor to keep shrugging off the attacks. Actually I do believe there is a good intention (somewhere) behind the attacks. But its not the cause of the attacks for sure. Its fine to show the attackers their erroneous ways, but in the end its really just all relevant views that count. If any of my edits or sources are a bit shonky, please point them out and I can do something about it. Thanks again. Jeffrire 15:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. It is a shame that editors with certain points of view can be treated with such rude behaviour at times, with no seeming regard for politeness.  Smee 15:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC).