j
|
Thank you for your contributions, and welcome to the project! Smee 07:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks Smee Jeffrire 05:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Purple Barnstar | ||
I, Smee, award this Purple Barnstar to Jeffrire, for enduring personal attacks for being a good contributor. Yours, Smee 14:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC). |
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)
j
|
Thank you for your contributions, and welcome to the project! Smee 07:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks Smee Jeffrire 05:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Purple Barnstar | ||
I, Smee, award this Purple Barnstar to Jeffrire, for enduring personal attacks for being a good contributor. Yours, Smee 14:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC). |
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)