Talk:Lifespring

message: Unless Lifespring called themselves any of the terms used, we cannot simply put POV in the article and declare that lifespring was LGAT or anything else.
If we list reference of people who 'called' them LGAT, then the wording must state that it was an author's opinion.
Without a clear 'definition' to apply, and a cited reference, we cannot simply declare POV Lsi john 22:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  facts needed 

message: I have attempted to remove some leading phrases and unduly prejudicial remarks and citations. 
:We cannot claim 'many' peole have said something, as that is WP:NR. We can list the people who said it.
:We cannot claim many new LGATs exist. We can claim many new organizations exist (which may have been labeled as LGAT).
:We do not need to cite awards given to a reference we are citing. That gives undue bias to a particular source and unfairly leads the reader to a desired conclusion. 
:for other comments, see edit notes Lsi john 04:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Leading phrases and bias 

message: Rick Ross website, which is not a WP:RS, is listed as an external link. Is this within wiki rules? If so, then please let me know, as there are numerous external links to non-reliable sources which need to be added to this and other articles. If not, then it should be removed. Lsi john 16:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rick ross 

message: All of the items listed in this section appear to violate the WP:EL standard for links to avoid:
12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. 
Lsi john 16:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: The opening remarks for an article should not 'lead' a reader to any conclusion. The opening remarks should be generic and factual, setting a groundwork for the article itself. Putting opinions of authors, regardless of their WP:RS status, adds an undue bias to the article and leads the reader, who should not be able to form an opinion about the subject based solely on the article's opening remarks. 
I have moved the material to a more appropriate location in the article. Lsi john 16:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Remarks 

message: Why did we ignore the peer review suggestions? Lsi john 01:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: peer review

message: The following source is sited for reference in this article:
http://perso.orange.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/v-intro.htm
This excerpt contains NO mention of Lifespring and therefore the Text in the article does not match the Source being cited.
Please provide a book/page number and quote, which establishes the use of the name "Lifespring" in the cited material.
Thank you.
Lsi john 23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid Source Cited

message: Smee, if this is an ownership issue, please just say so and I'll back away. Otherwise, please show some respect and stop edit warring with me on every article I edit. You have already demonstrated that you do not check your facts or read the articles. My  tag is appropriate. Lsi john 20:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ownership

message: Smee, You are engaging in edit warring in Lifespring and Mind Dynamics. You are at least 2RR in both of those articles against the same editor. You have been asked to stop it and you persist. This is clearly edit warring and must Stop.
You can be blocked for 2RR warring as well, when you are clearly warring and not discussing. This is the 2nd article in less than 2 hours that you are warring in. This is a warning to stop your edit warring.
Lsi john 20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: Hey everybody, Smee just PM'd me and said if I didn't add more sources than the one I have, to my recent contriubtion, then he'd delete what I just put in.  What do you all think?  I think that this is a very important topic, and since Lifespring has spun so many noteworthy spinoff groups, it's really important to document them.  Any suggestions on cleaning up the section I just added or any ideas?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fredsmith2 (talk • contribs).
*, I agree with you here.  I believe the article should mention all of these spinoff organizations.  However, the information will have zero staying power in the article without citations that satisfy the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline.  Smee 06:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinoff organizations 

message: Jossi, in the edit summary, you asked me to summarize this.  I then did so, at your request.  Please add this info back into the lead.  I shortened the material, twice.  As a prominent critic, and the wife of a United States Supreme Court Justice, Thomas has a loud mouthpiece, and the events that occurred to her as a result are also notable.  However, to simply note that she was a prominent critic in the lead, and not the fact that she was harassed and needed counseling after Lifespring - will be a good enough compromise for the both of us.  Smee 17:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smee, Virginia Thomas was 1 person. Prominent or not. A single person, does not warrant space in an article lead about a company that was open for almost 20 years. Please read my comments (above). It really isn't difficult to be NPOV here. Stop packing the LEADs with criticism and controversy when that is not the primary focus. Or, rename the article to 'Criticism of Lifespring'. I really am trying to be understanding here, but I don't get it. Don't you realize how much friendlier people would be toward you if you started writing neutral articles? Wikipedia might actually be fun if you did that. Lsi john 18:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Lsi john, your words in the subsection above are so filled with poison and so obviously using the word "we" to refer to me, and my userpage and talkpage with disdain, and my numerous well-sourced contributions on the project, that I just don't know how to respond anymore.  I've tried being polite with you, but all you do, time after time, is keep coming back with nasty remarks at me, as opposed to pointing out specific issues with an article, or just sticking to specific issues about an article.  It is truly troublesome and disruptive.  Smee 18:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm truly sorry that you choose to see poison in them. If my words are poison, then what do you call the words you are using against the companies you are writing about? Because that is exactly what you are doing to them. You are going out of your way to highlight their mistakes and to highlight the controversy. And you are ignoring 20+ years and 300,000 students. For someone who can't take any criticism, you sure seem to dish it out in piles to these companies. In my case, I made a polite example, and mentioned your 'mistake'. How would you feel if we write an article "Users accused of ...."? How would you feel if users started posting the accusation on their user pages? I can tell you that I would complain if they did. It would be wrong and you wouldn't like it. Just like what you are doing in these articles is wrong. Lsi john 18:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: But Smee, its a citable FACT. We can report and talk about facts here. right? Its not attacking you to discuss something that actually happened. Even you admitted it. Don't you see? I'm saying exactly the words here that you always say.. citable fact, reliable source, relevant material... and you are not happy about it. Yet you do exactly the same thing to these companies. You want us to care about your objections. You want us to forget your mistake. Do you care if the companies object to your biased articles? Lsi john 18:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about content, it is about your biased content and your constant and repeated efforts to re-insert it. I am just using facts which relate to you, to help you understand what you do not seem to be able to understand otherwise. Not once did I accuse you of deliberately inserting false information into an article. Never have I suggested that you intentionally vandalized that article by inserting information which did not relate to the company. I'm simply relating the facts that actually happened. And you don't like it, but you seem to love to relate all the bad facts about these companies. Lsi john 18:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virginia Thomas 

message: *COMMENT: - I will not engage in further discussion with this user, if the user refuses to keep comments to content of the article, and not discuss individual editors constantly, either intertwined with article discussion, or as opposed to it.  My apologies to others who wish to have a more polite discussion about content on the article talk pages.  Yours, Smee 18:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment to other editors, from [[User:Smee|Smee]] 

message: And thus the last statement in the lead should be when the company ceased operations.  Smee 19:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it should be in its own paragraph. Unless its closing is SPECIFICALLY AND DIRECTLY RELATED to the lawsuits. Stop using implication and innuendo to push an adjenda. Lsi john 20:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Well it was certainly good that you reverted first. Why do you have to revert first and then consider you might be wrong. This seems to be a theme. If the company didn't shut down as a direct relation to the lawsuits, their closing should not be in that paragraph. Please stop reverting me simply because I make an edit. Its rude and arrogant. Lsi john 20:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *And my VALID reason for editing was in my edit comment and did not deserve to be reverted without consideration. I will take note that you refuse to have discussion about article content. Thank you. Lsi john 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead should move in chronological order. 

message: I am going to add the Work In Progress tag to this section, and provide some background on the academic analyses.  Smee 01:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be careful with sources. Lsi john 01:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop following me around and saying that.  Smee 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: a) I'm not following you around. b) Please stick to the article and stop talking about my behavior. Lsi john 02:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analyzed in psychology sources 

message: Trimmed down EL sect, added . The sect was looking like spam, pushing out promotional products, linkfarm, etc. Cirt (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lifespring. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208153055/http://www.hoffmaninstitute.org/about/directors-advisors/directors.html to https://www.hoffmaninstitute.org/about/directors-advisors/directors.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lifespring. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714134336/http://www.q7.com/~terri/Papers/transformative.htm to http://www.q7.com/~terri/Papers/transformative.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Lifespring's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "thepit":
From Holiday Magic: 
From Mind Dynamics: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Lifespring]] 

message: There's an old video clip of Ginni Thomas participating in a televised discussion about  Lifespring here. JezGrove (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ginni Thomas (again)