User talk:Zonbalance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Primal Therapy

Hi, Zonbalance.

Could you please tell us about your reasons for this kind of edits [1]

IMHO the "Discover" article is better at the "Criticism" section, but maybe you have a reason we do not know. Please, tell us that reason. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] I invite you...

To take a look at this [2].

Thank you. Randroide (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Primal therapy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr violation

I have reported you to the administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN/3RR) for repeated violation of the 3rr rule.

Please note (once again) that wikipedia has a rule (WP:3RR) prohibiting users from reverting the same edit more than 3 times in 24 hours, while refusing communication and dispute resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twerges (talk • contribs) 20:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, Zonbalance

I suppose it could be said that I am "in your side". I am the User who added something like this to the article Primal Therapy. I am with those who want to add relevant sourced information, not those who want to delete uncomfortable pieces of data.

And, sir, I kindly invite you to talk things out here: Talk:Primal therapy and to -please- stop doing undiscussed edits. User:GrahameKing and me managed to avoid a block on the article or a personal block, despite our profound differences (please see Talk:Primal_therapy/Archive_1#Janov_at_Paris_and_PubMed).

Thank you for your attention.

Yours:

Randroide (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please discuss your reasons why Discover Mag belongs in peer-reviewed journals

Zonbalance,

We're interested in your opinion as to why the "Discover Magazine" editorial belongs in the "peer-reviewed journals" section. At present, we do not understand your reasons. Please contribute to the discussion page and list your reasons. Thanks. I've added another section discussing my reasons for believing that the Discover magazine article is in the wrong place.

Please do not make assumptions about my motives. I noticed that you posted to an administrator that I'm a cultist trying to suppress critical information, as well as several other assumptions. It appears that part of the difficulty in having a discussion, is the constant assumption of sinister motives and connections. Note that I am not a cultist paid by the Primal Center to suppress criticism. I have no connection with the Primal Center or Institute, I've had no such connection for years, I am not paid by them, I am not being peer-pressured into believing that Discover Magazine isn't a journal, and I have no financial or social stake in Primal Therapy whatsoever.

Once again, I am not suggesting that the discover article be removed! I know I've said this several times, however I may not be making the point clearly enough. Again, I'm not suggesting that the article should be removed, only that it's in the wrong section. I believe it should remain in the "criticism" section. If you feel otherwise, please contribute to the discussion.

Thanks. Twerges (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello zonbalance, I have removed the discover article from the peer reviewed section, I'm not sure you are aware that it is also in the criticism section, which I will watch to make sure itis not deleted from there. However, although I am reversing one of your edits it does not mean I disagree with you on everything, I agree that the debunking primal therapy website link should stay since it is a valuable source, and I agree that the site may have in the past attracted editors with a financial stake in primal therapy. I agree with you that the article in places still has a primal-advocacy-bias in a most bizarre way, however the criticism section makes up for it a little.Aussiewikilady (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure Discover doesn't have a pretty high quality fact checking department that is any less reliable than some of the other periodicals listed in the peer reviewed section. For example I think Discover is more reliable than a psychosomatic journal from the 70s. I think it should stay or maybe have the section title changed. If it stays deleted, in its place maybe someone could list some other peer reviewed articles that discuss primal therapy in part, or maybe even ones that dicuss catharsis, ventilation therapies etc without mentioning primal therapy directly. The reason I reversed the deletions at first was because I didn't realize the criticism section had the same link. Then later I reversed it because I thought it was just step 1 of another assault on the criticisms, and the start of a new pro primal editing momentum. Also the article in Discover included a quote from a peer reviewed psychologists, and I think was written by a peer reviewed science writer, so I was reluctant to allow it to be deleted.

Zonbalance

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] primal therapy

If you look back at the history of the primal therapy edits, you will find evidence that at least one of the contributors edited in such a way as to suggest a financial stake in one of the primal institutions (or at the very least a strong social stake). Still today, the primal therapy wiki page has a bias in favor of primal therapy as a result of those edits (except the criticism section). Potential patients or young psychologists are not ging to be well served by the pro primal bias, although the criticism sectionshould elp with some critical thinking.
The conflict of interest of Graham King is obvious, but conversations should generally be limited to the issues rather than the contributors. If you run into editors who are not open to rationally discussing issues, as you sometimes will, there are avenues you may pursue to ensure that these articles remain neutral anyway. They don't always work quickly, but sometimes they do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, please visit discussion again

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twerges (talk • contribs) 05:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reversion

Zonbalance, you reverted without discussion or consensus! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twerges (talk • contribs) 05:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Regarding so-called vandalism

Instead of simply accusing me of vandalism, I invite you to discuss this issue on the Janov talk page. There is an important issue of principle at stake, and I'm confident I can defend my actions. Skoojal (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added a section

to the Arthur Janov discussion page.Twerges (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malcolmkass's alleged vandalism of pseudoscience wiki page

I have added my edits again to the Fringe Science and Pseduoscience pages for the "religiously inspired" content is 100% unverifiable, and nothing more than someone motivated for personal reasons and beliefs. Many physicists regard sciences like psychology as fringe science, and this comment at the end is 100% irrelevant. . If you wish to see my credentals, I would be more than happy to forward you my Chem Eng Degree, which requires large amount of Physics, more Chemistry that Chem. majors and ridiculous amount of Themro. I have removed ID from Pseudoscience as well. It follows scientific method, you may not agree, many don't, but there is no evidence that it does follow it. The burden is on someone to prove otherwise. If you wish to discuss scientific method, I am happy too, but please have more evidence than "not helpful"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmkass (talk • contribs) 17:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we say Salem hypothesis‎? HrafnTalkStalk 17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice, instead of have a debate, you drag up an artificial term to degrade. Let me say, I believe in evolution, always have, but if many engineers disregard evolution, it is not because they actually believe in creationism, it is because the absolute lack of scientific rigor involved. Read a physics book.

As far as I can see, you weren't debating the issue, just removing references to Intelligent design on Pseudoscience with fallacious edit summaries like: "Inteligent design follow scientific theory, so it is not pseudoscience, please do not irrationally change" without first "debating" the issue on talk. Intelligent design is a creationist (specifically Neo-creationist) position, so supporting it will naturally create the impression that you are a creationist. Read an evolutionary biology textbook. Read a textbook on the Philosophy of biology. HrafnTalkStalk 03:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou Hrafn for saying it for me, ditto. Zonbalance (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added something...

to the Arthur Janov discussion section, which you may be interested in. Twerges (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Argument on the Janov talk page

Zonbalance, I'd suggest that if you are going to participate on the Janov talk page at all you provide actual arguments for your views. The point of having a talk page is to make it possible for people to reason with each other, not to make it possible for them to make unsupported assertions that others are wrong. Since you have shown somewhat more inclination than Psychmajor902 to develop workable compromises in disputes, I'm hoping that there is some point to my saying this. Skoojal (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And speaking of workable compromises, I have made a new proposal on the Janov talk page, one which seems to me like a good way of ending this silly edit war. Skoojal (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Skoojal, but your clear intentions to hide critical information about Primal Therapy, and to flood the articles with cult-like recruitment material (sourced - very clever) is not helpful to the spread of information and the scientific investigation into psychotherapy effectiveness. Zonbalance (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry too. My current proposal on the talk page - you did look at it, didn't you? - is obviously not intended to hide critical information about Primal Therapy. It is simply to shift it into a separate criticism section, where it belongs. In no sense is that 'hiding' anything. You'll note that criticism of controversial writers' work is not generally included in biography sections of articles.Skoojal (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually I see that the appropriate edit has now been made. Skoojal (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Primal Scream

Zonbalance, I have recently modified the article on The Primal Scream. You will note that I have not removed the criticism section you put it - it's perfectly appropriate. You will also note however that I have re-inserted the mention of favourable reviews. This is not me flooding the article with cult-like recruitment material - I have never been a member of that particular cult, would never want to be, and if anyone were thinking of joining, I would tell them not to. It's simply that these reviews do form part of some editions of the book, and it's reasonable to mention this. Taking into account what you said, I have changed the wording so that the article does not suggest that reviews of The Primal Scream were primarily favourable. Skoojal (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And for whatever difference it makes, those reviews are at least partially accurate. One of them pointed out that The Primal Scream might re-shape society. For better or worse, it did. Skoojal (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Primal therapy

I give you a formal warning not to re-add blogs and personal websites to the list of negative quotations in this article. I have removed two that have been repeatedly reinserted, while leaving in two of your recent amendments of reasonably sourced illustrative quotations. Stop here, please. I share Skoojal's view that the material in the article shows the true nature of this cult quite adequately without them. Do not restore them or you will be blocked for edit warring. DGG (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)