Talk:Leadership Dynamics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leadership Dynamics article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs. Business and economics Portal This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale Mid rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale

A fact from Leadership Dynamics appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on May 29, 2007.

[edit] Created article

Created article, sourced to (13) reputable citations. Smee 09:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

• Here is the article 29 May 2007, from the DYK appearance. Have fun editing the article. Smee 22:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC).

Thank you. Though I'm not clear why you posted a link to an old and inaccurate version of the article. The DYK citation was actually incorrect, based on the text in the source. Though I can see how you would have made the mistake. I'm sure there are other faulty or inaccurate DYK citations, so its probably not a big issue for them. Best regards, thanks for the kind words. Lsi john 02:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, nope, it was correct, sourced to a reputable citation, and factual, but anyways, besides the point, it will be interesting to note future changes to the article. Later, Smee 02:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

• I find the previous comments by Smee, in combination with 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 {{citecheck}} 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 [[Category:American fraudsters]] here, clearly citing BLP violation, and Smee promptly replaced the category with [[Category:Fraud]] 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 02:10, 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 02:16, 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)