Talk:Steve Pavlina

message: It seems that everything, pretty much, is cited from third party references.  I didn't see a need of having the POV notice anymore. Jwh335 (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed POV notice

message: I deleted a lot of the claims that were backed up by his blog.  This is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement. Jwh335 (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if the Huffington Post is a notable source or not, but they had an article on Steve's Polyamory.  For the moment to be safe, I moved the polyamory ref into the main body of the article, and haven't claimed it as having mainstream recognition. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 10:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No Third Party References

message: There's a lot of persistent vandalism happening to this article lately. I recommend temporarily locking it to stop this. Python (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be guilty of pseudo-science, you have to claim that the thing you are doing is science, he doesn't. Most things that people say on a day to day basis would be pseudo-science, if those people without scientific creditials would call them scientific. Brutha (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The controlling factor is not whether the word "science" is mentioned, but whether explanation for events or situations are given that have other, unrelated, scientific explanations. Otherwise, anyone can avoid the label of "pseudoscience" by simply using a different word. While Steve does not use the word "science" per se, he does in fact claim to be describing reality. 78.96.82.26 (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shakespeare was also describing reality. There are still people who think that his description of the human condition is one of the best, but that doesn't make Shakespeare a pseudoscientist, because Shakespeare doesn't claim that his description have truth in an objective sense. Shakespeare is valued for providing a certain perspective to view reality. A lot of Steves writing is about using different perspectives to analyse reality. He doesn't claim that any of those perspectives are true in an objective way. Brutha 18:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If I type "polyphasic sleep" "steve pavlina" into google I get 24,200 results, "million dollar experiment" "steve pavlina" gets only 899 hits, therefore more people know him for the polyphasic sleep stuff. Brutha (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Google doesn't seem to be a valid reference point according to the person protecting this article. I suppose if we don't use it one way we shouldn't use it the other eiter.78.96.82.26 (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I understand it the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim, not the other way around. Google isn't a good argument when you have to consider offline sources as well, but I think no reliable offline source mentions Steves million dollar experiment. Brutha 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In the internet everyone can register under any name on any website. Since writing PM's is allowed in some forums without verifying the Email Address, it is also possible to sent PMs from that forum account under Erin Pavlina's name. A attempt to attack a single low traffic website that is critical of him would hurt him a lot more than the website itself. I someone wants to attack a website there are far more effective methods than spamming from in ones own name. Someone who wanted to deminish Steves reputation would on the other hand have an interest to start a spam campain like that.  Brutha (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The attacked website seems to have comparable traffic, best I can tell. I never heard of forums allowing posting or using other features without confirming email address. And you'd sound a lot more respectable if you signed under your own name, Steve. 78.96.82.26 (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The other site has an Alexa ranking of 205,113 while Steves website has one of 8,079. Quite a difference. According to compete.com Steve has had 133,883 visitors last month while the other site didn't have enough vistitors to have a ranking. While I'm not completely neutral I also someone different than Steve. Brutha 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  The materials on Steve's website indicate that he was charged with a felony, but not convicted and that the day or two in jail caused him to start rethinking his life.  The page cited says he was charged with a felony and spent time in jail but is silent on the matter of conviction.  I don't know what public record says, but a reference to that was not provided as a source. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 09:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You are wrong about the removal of these points and others constituting vandalism. Please read the policies on verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, original research, and biographies of living persons. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Here's the Person infobox template. Fill it and move it to the article. CannibalSmith (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Who cares about this person?  Is every blogger on the internet with a self help book really that notable?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.222.216 (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: 
The following statement is inaccurate and should be removed or revised:
Pavlina believes that objective reality does not exist, and that there is only one consciousness (the concept of subjective reality).
Mr. Pavlina has consistently positioned "subjective reality" as "one of many different lenses through which we can filter our perceptions."  Mr. Pavlina has not denied the existence of objective reality.
69.242.85.126 (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed completely as no source was provided. --- RockMFR 01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate content on locked article 

message: I notice that the redlink to Erin Pavlina was removed.  I don't know whether she's notable or not - she has published two books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Erin%20Pavlina) --Irrevenant [ talk ] 10:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erin Pavlina - notable or not? 

message: There are already several notability references in the article and above.  There is significant, reliable coverage from multiple established secondary sources.  His notability isn't temporary since he's been known for a variety of things over time.  In short, I can't see why the template was ever added, but please feel free to discuss. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 01:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of notability template September 2009 

message: Is Steve Pavlina really notable enough to have his own wikipedia page?  The vast majority of links on this page are not up to the standards required for wikipedia citations.  That suggests to me that perhaps he is not notable enough, or the page should be scaled back dramatically.  Any opinions?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.53.24 (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe the page should be scaled back.  The current article only has one small paragraph for each point of notability - any smaller would be a stub.  If anything, I think the article could stand to have a paragraph or two of info added describing the book. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 04:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of Subject 

message: I've added 3 new cites.  They might also (instead?) be sources - I'm not real clear on the difference between the two, and I'd appreciate if someone could check this for me. http://bjyouth.ynet.com/3.1/1111/18/6503695.html also looks like it could be a valid reference, but I don't speak Chinese and I don't trust Google Translate. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 04:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Cites. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Steve Pavlina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stevepavlina.com/forums/steve-pavlina/7941-steve-wikipedia-2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified