User talk:Pseudo daoist: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:17, 18 September 2010

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pseudo_daoist.

This is Pseudo daoist's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Responses

If I write a comment on your talk page, please respond there, not here.jonathon (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphology Talk

Please put comments about Graphology in this block.jonathon 22:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

e-Sword Talk

Please put comments about e-Sword in this block.jonathon 22:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relgiously Orientated Distributions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pseudo_daoist/Religious_Distros is the current draft for the proposed religiously Orientated Distributions page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pseudo_daoist/Bible_study_Software is a draft for a page. I didn't know about Bible software when I started my draft.jonathon (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for New Users

Deletion Guidelines

Unofficial guidelines

WP:CONG : Notable churches or congregation
WP:SCHOOL : Notable Schools

jonathon (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Else

If a comment doesn't belong in a category listed above, put it here.jonathon 22:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred text?

You are going to need to provide neutral citations to the effect that the text are sacred. Without it - and without achieving consensus in discussion - I am not going to allow what appears to be biased descriptives to be allowed to the article. I am engaged int he discussion. Until its concluded, it would be splendid you could abstain from reverting the word back in. thanks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please vote

here Slrubenstein | Talk 02:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graphology 'POV pushing'

Hi, I was wondering if you could explain to me what exactly about my moving text from the end of the lead to the beginning is POV pushing? If it's considered a pseudoscience - which we can happily assume that it is, given the references (and current scientific studies), surely that information should be in the first sentence of the lead - it's rather important! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article fails NPOV. Barry Beyerstein called it a pseudoscience, purely because he objected to it on moral and ethical grounds. Scientific grounds are irrelevant --- which he grudgingly admits to in his book. More to the point, even his research found that there was some validity to it. That rationale (It is morally and ethically objectionable, and thus it is, by definition, a pseudoscience) is why the current version of the article contains none of the recent (within the last five years) research that supports handwriting analysis. That rational is also why none of the papers that critique the research in the field are cited in the article. Most of the criticism and research is akin to walking into McDonald's and being upset that they don't have a Stutz Blackhawk in stock, and then criticizing them for not being a diamond jeweler. jonathon (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reason for fixing the article - or even tagging it - not reverting my edit. If you disagree with it being called pseudoscience, you should be removing the sentence entirely. It seems like you're trying to hide a well-sourced sentence instead. Why do you think said sentence belongs at the end, rather than the beginning, of the lead? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the lack of a reply, I'm planning to revert your change later today. Please let me know if you wish to dispute this change. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 : The whole article fails NPOV. Barry Beyerstein called it a pseudoscience, purely because he objected to it on moral and ethical grounds. Scientific grounds are irrelevant --- which he grudgingly admits to in his book. More to the point, even his research found that there was some validity to it. That rationale (It is morally and ethically objectionable, and thus it is, by definition, a pseudoscience) is why the current version of the article contains none of the recent (within the last five years) research that supports handwriting analysis. That rational is also why none of the papers that critique the research in the field are cited in the article. Most of the criticism and research is akin to walking into [[McDonald's]] and being upset that they don't have a [[Stutz Blackhawk]] in stock, and then criticizing them for not being a diamond jeweler. [[User:Pseudo daoist|jonathon]] ([[User talk:Pseudo daoist#top|talk]]) 20:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 ::That's a reason for fixing the article - or even tagging it - not reverting my edit. If you disagree with it being called pseudoscience, you should be removing the sentence entirely. It seems like you're trying to hide a well-sourced sentence instead. Why do you think said sentence belongs at the end, rather than the beginning, of the lead? [[User:Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry|Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry]] ([[User talk:Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry|talk]]) 20:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
+::: In light of the lack of a reply, I'm planning to revert your change later today. Please let me know if you wish to dispute this change. [[User:Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry|Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry]] ([[User talk:Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry|talk]]) 13:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)