Talk:PSI Seminars

message: Created article on the organization, with 12 citations.  Smee 17:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created article 

message: *The groups are "notable".  They have their own articles on the project.  This is a common phrase used on the project, when referencing other articles that exist on the project.  Smee 01:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's OR unless you can find a citation. Just because other editors allowed OR doesn't mean we must. Lsi john 01:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Stable articles in existence for a long time are inherently notable.  Smee 01:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Good catch to avoid 4RR, eh? :) Lsi john 01:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No.  To Assume Good Faith.  Please do not make these bad faith assumptions, this is not civil.  It is also not conducive to constructive discussion on talk pages.  And for your information, the information was only restored twice.  Smee 01:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then you didn't see that you were 4R in this article. I apologize for assuming you saw that. Lsi john 01:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken, I was not.  Read WP:3RR.  And try to act a little bit more polite on talk pages.  Smee 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm being very polite, thank you. I've read 3RR and you reverted my edits 4 times already in the past few hours. I just can't report it due to the promise I made. Lsi john 01:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:3RR refers to reverting back to the same version of a page.  You are mistaken.  But that's alright if you mistakenly misinterpreted 3RR.  No worries.  Just try to be a tad more polite on talk pages next time is all.  Thanks.  Smee 01:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable 

message: Smee, as you have indicated that I am not welcome on your page, I am hereby informing you that you have been reported for 3RR violation. Lsi john 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR Violation and edit warring

message: The citation on Larry King specifically says its the best he's seen. It specifically does not say they will attend. This was not my citation, I only corrected it based on content. Also, his credentials are as important as every critic's credentials. It shows his basis for making the comment. Please do not put in false or misleading quotes. Lsi john 12:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smee, I am requesting that you stop removing relevant sourced material. Your actions are biasing the article in a POV manner. If this author said something, then its relevant to the article. Lsi john 12:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Thank you. I really don't care who adds the material as long as it is accurate. If you feel you need to be the last one to edit thats okay with me. Thanks again for restoring the correct citation. Lsi john 13:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Larry King

message: This is the sentence in question, from the article:
Other groups cited by Vahle as influenced by Mind Dynamics included Erhard Seminars Training, The Forum, and Lifespring.
For third opinion commenter, please comment on relevance of this sentence in this article.
=== Comment by  ===
*In light of the very next sentence citing the fact that Stich and Russell compared PSI Seminars as "an EST type self-awareness and motivational organization", and this is in a reputable secondary sourced citation, I think the sentence in question should remain in the article.  Smee 12:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion 

message: *In light of the very next sentence citing the fact that Stich and Russell compared PSI Seminars as "an EST type self-awareness and motivational organization", and this is in a reputable secondary sourced citation, I think the sentence in question should remain in the article.  Smee 12:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{user|Smee}} 

message: I agree with Smee. I see no reason to remove that sentence other than to conceal the influence, which would violate WP:NPOV. -Amatulic 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{user|Amatulic}} 

message: "Some companies will pay for their employees to attend coursework at PSI Seminars[9]."
Is not an accurate citation for the referenced article. Please provide the exact quote from the source which you believe justifies the statement made here in this article. Lsi john 15:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate source citation

message: *If others know of more sources for secondary citations on this topic, or other related topics, that would be most appreciated.  Smee 04:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sources for secondary citations? 

message: *To all who may read this:  I APOLOGIZE FOR MAKING AN HONEST MISTAKE WITH A SOURCED CITATION.  Thank you for your understanding, to anyone who reads this apology.  I had only seen part of a quote, which read:  said Forrest Story, manager of Personnel staff development for Orange County, which pays the Class fees for its employees to attend the PSI seminars -- However I am assuming on good faith that another editor checked this cite, and found the full article, and found that it does not refer to this "PSI Seminars".  Though the editor did not point this out politely, I admit that I made a mistake with the citation, and that was wrong.  I have added literally hundreds of reputable secondary sourced citations to other articles in the course of my contributions to them and/or creation of new articles, and to the best of my knowledge this is the first time that something like this has happened.  However, it will most likely not be the last.  I am human.  I make mistakes.  If someone in the future points a mistake out to me, politely, I will most happily discuss it and if it is confirmed, I will remove the information in question myself.  Thank you.  Smee 20:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Apologize for making an honest mistake with a sourced citation 

message: DGG added the "news release" tag on 18 May 2015, but I don't see why that was done. As stated in "Complete rewrite after deletion discussion," above, I tried to make this entry conform extremely closely to Wikipedia rules. I deleted all citations from books published by PSI Seminars, non-mainstream publishers, etc., and I included the cautionary and negative information that I found in a citable source (the PhD thesis from USC). I also included a link to Large-group awareness training, which includes more cautionary material, although some of it is relatively old and not particularly relevant to the PSI Seminars LGAT. To the best of my knowledge (albeit I'm a beginner here!) everything in the article is cited from a Wikipedia-acceptable source. I could not find any citable material (other than the discredited Singer book, which I don't want to cite for the reasons stated in "Complete rewrite after deletion discussion") to counterbalance the citable positive books and articles that were previously in the article; should I therefore delete some of the positive material to make the entry appear to be more balanced? (That seems a bit extreme!) If DGG could contact me on my talk page or comment here and suggest reasonable changes that would get the tag removed, I would be more than happy to make them! Eric Siegel (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You could start with the entire Courses section. We don't advertise when and where people run their courses. Personally I'd just delete the entire section and salt the earth in my wake, but if you wanted to give re-writing that a shot it would be a start. There is a difference between providing straight information in a neutral fashion and providing straight information in a neutral fashion that is encyclopedic in nature. Business opens at 10am is not encyclopedic under any interpretation. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: {U|Panyd}}}, I really like the wording of your explanation. I may use it in the future, if that's ok with you  DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Panyd and DGG, for clarifying the reason the tag was applied. I've removed the "Courses" section and replaced it with a pair of sentences that simply state the course names. As the company's product is those few classes, I feel that I should retain mention of their existence, if only in brief form. I've removed the descriptive detail and the mention of the "Principia" conference along with its list of notable speakers, which is of secondary importance. Assuming that this is sufficient, I've removed the tag; please tell me if further action is necessary. Eric Siegel (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Re- Deleted all citations from PSI sources: The lead citation for History and Background is the PSI About page.  The text is a slight rework of the information on the PSI About page.  LarryLACa (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  News Release Tag