User talk:Pseudo daoist

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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]

Dear Jonathon, I am back on the graphology page after a long time. There are major changes and the whole article is in bad shape. What happened and what are the issues? Do you need any kind of assistance?

Regards. Bhekare (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, a pseudoskeptic managed to push his agenda. For the time being, I'm going to leave the misleading statements in it. If you want to cite the research that has been published since 2000, that refutes the current article, do so. jonathon (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am proud of you. Bhekare (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will this resource help? HARL Bhekare (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the curator of HARL does not have a computer. That website was created by an individual who is in "Freinds of HARL". (I think that is the name of the group. At any rate, it is something like that.) In theory, they will have a list of recent research. Somebody emailed me the list about a month ago, but I can't find it. :( jonathon (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2008 (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

Everything Else

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

Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Graphology. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other participant point blank refused to engage in constructive dialog, resorting to ad hominem attacks, and similar tactics, deliberately avoiding discussing why their sources fail WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V.jonathon (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer: he is lying and he called me vandal. 456hjk (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have breached the 3RR and your rationale is unconvincing - blocked for 24 hours--Matilda ^talk 22:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on Talk:Living Stream Ministry

Hi Pseudo daoist,

I would like you to help and participate in the discussion on Talk:Living Stream Ministry page. I believe it should not be a long and complex one. The User:Angrygirl finally spoke some words. I am happy and would like to resolve this issue as soon as possible. Your opinion will be much valuable. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute...

Hi Jonathon. I have observed your edits to the Graphology article and I've learnt a lot from your contributions. However I'm still unsure about your position on the subject. Do you think it's a pseudoscience? If not does it have any validity? If so of what kind? It would be great if you could clarify these for me. Thanks ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the article I wrote on the subject in 1985, I stated that 99.99% of all the research done in the field was a waste of time, effort, energy, and money. Bad research design is standard practice. I did formulate a general rule: If the study was trait specific, graphology was not supported. If the study was not trait specific, graphology was supported.jonathon (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Barry Beyerstein's criticism of graphology is valid. Singer's list of "essential things to know prior to doing an analysis" do turn it into an exercise in cold reading. His questioning of the effect size has some merit.jonathon (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The researchers make huge errors. Errors on the par of an airline booking 500 people for a flight, when the plane is a Piper Cub J-3, then having to refund the tickets, because the flight was to Mars, Pennsylvania, and not the planet Mars as implied by the advertising.jonathon (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, there is no objective data by which one can claim that graphology as a means of determining personality, is a pseudoscience, nor is there any objective data by which one can claim that graphology as a means of determining personality is not a pseudoscience. The 250+ studies on determining physical gender from handwriting is the most concrete evidence in favour of the hypothesis that graphology is not a pseudoscience. The sole reason that this evidence suffices, is because none of the studies indicated that physical gender can not be determined from the handwriting. This is not the case with any other datapoint whose research has been published.jonathon (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Jonathon, thank you so much for taking the time to answer my query :) ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Xhosa and Zulu Wikipedias

Hi! I've seen that you can speak Xhosa and Zulu and I want to ask you for help on those Wikipedias. Nowadays it's without people working there and, if you help me translating some phrases, we can improve those Wikipedias. Could you help me there, please? --Jeneme (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I've got my hands full translating other material into various languages. jonathon (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footprints in the Sand

Johnathon, You indicate that you have disallowed my reference to polygraph testing because polygraph tests are not reliable, Yet the government routinely uses polygraph tests to qualify and disqualify secret service,CIA and FBI personel as well as other sensitive position personel. At the same time you qualify and put back bogus names for non existent aledged authors of "FOOTPRINTS IN THE SAND" which are presented without a single scrap of bonafide evidence to support them. It seems that you are more than a little predjudiced in favor of the falsifiers. You might want to reconsider your position for the integrity of Wikapedia. It would be different if there was any truth to what they say but there isn't. They are just trying to steal. 24.21.45.224 (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A polygraph test, in and of itself proves nothing. Government agencies use, not because of their validity, because of their utility as a means of coercion. At least three people have claimed to be the author of the poem. None of them have been able to produce a copy that dates to the time period in which they claimed to have written it.jonathon (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking note of your personal feelings about the polygraph; How, I wonder, do you justify including Hausing and Stevenson as claiming to be the author of the poem when they did not claim to be the author? Their names were held up by other people after they were deceased !! Shouldn't an encyclopedia require a higher level of authentication than that before the inclusion of information? I am thinking of reliability of the encyclopedia it's self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.45.224 (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claims have been made on their behalf:

Ella H. Scharring-Hausen: Basis of claim: 1922 publication. (Wherabouts unknown.);
Mary Stevenson: 1939 : Basis of claim: Copy of poem on paper dated to circa 1940. Claim described in: Gail Giorgio Footprints in the Sand: The Inspiring Life Behind the Immortal Poem. 1995;
Burrell Webb: 1958: Basis of claim: Result of a polygraph test;
Carolyn Joyce Carty: April Passion week, 1963: Basis of claim: Adaption of Ella H. Scharring-Hausen 1922's version; Copyright filed 1986;
Margaret Fishback Powers: 1967: Trademarked: "Footprints in the Sand"; Copyright: From Heart to Heart: Poems and Poetry 1986; Claim described in: Margaret Powers Footprints: The True Story Behind the Poem that Inspired Millions. 1993;

jonathon (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johanathon, Have you studied any of the "basis of claim" materials that you list here or are you just presuming them to exist and to be legitimate? I have been unable to secure any of them except the polygraph test results and the two books.The books do not appear to offer anything substantial so they can hardly be considered to be the basis of anything but imagination. You refer to a poem from 1940 which has been mentioned but does not exist. You refer to a poem dated 1922 which apparently doesn't exist. Is there no standard of requirements for information to be accepted into Wikapedia?

The claims made on their behalf were made by themselves!