User talk:Aussiewikilady

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Aussiewikilady, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

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 Button sig.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) 22:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


My opinion about the troubles with Primal Therapy: Moonriddengirl is an administrator. If she says that a website is inappropriate for linking, it is, because -I think- administrators are the shopkeepers here.

Please note that I am a strong inclusivist, and if you check the history of Primal Therapy since 2006, you´ll see that I added a lot of critical sourced data.

My piece of advice: It would be a good idea to contact the webmaster of the offending site and suggest him to remove the offending material. Then, a case could be made to reintroduce a link to that website.

Yours Randroide (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Primal therapy[edit]

Hi Aussiewikilady,

Thank you for your message. I've replied at my talk page. Jakew (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Cultism etc...[edit]

Who else would be a more reliable or valuable source? if someone with years of experience with Janov's own center, who has no financial interests, and is no longer influenced by the social influence in the cult is not a valuable and rare source, then who would be? How many people are there out there who would be a better source?

AussieWikiLady, I am not saying that any other person would be a better source. I'm saying that nobody can have their anonymous opinions inserted into the article. A reliable source in this case would be a journal, book, etc.

To me it is a clear indication of a cult that you can absorb all that negative information about your group and still spend hours on wiki trying to remove criticism of it.

AussieWikiLady, I've never removed even a single critical reference from the criticism section. In fact, I've even added one or two critical references to it. The only thing I've removed was a single quotation because it was a clear violation of policy, and when I did so, the WP:RSN editors agreed with me. Do you really think that's "clear indication of a cult"?

...I was never an intense follower of Janov. Quite the opposite. When I was a client at Janov's center, years ago, I went there once per week for a psychotherapy session, and the rest of the time I had nothing to do with primal therapy. When I stopped attending the center years ago, I expressed my serious reservations about Janov's neurological theories, and then I left and never returned. I left about the same time as you did, or a little later. I've had no contact with them since.

At present, I am not a member of any cohesive social organization. I've never liked groups of any kind. I am not a member of any cult, using any definition of that word. Nevertheless, I sometimes read accusations directed toward myself on the wikipedia discussion board, which accuse me of being a cult member, of making "cultic" edits, of having financial incentives to edit the page, etc. But I know as a simple and undisputable fact that none of those accusations are true.

I hope you can understand why I no longer grant much credibility to the accusations that I've read elsewhere.

To me it is a clear indication of a cult that you...

That comment is personal and offensive. Please read the wikipedia policies regarding etiquette, and follow them from now on. I'm not meaning to be nasty here, and I'm not terribly upset, but I do hope that we can refrain from that kind of comment in the future.Twerges (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?[edit]

Could you explain how this is "clarifying content", as you stated in your edit summary? It is not "clarifying content", but a revert of my edit to remove unreliable sources. Jakew (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

They are NOT unreliable sources, that was an argument started by twerges who has previous made a commitment to primal therapy. Aussiewikilady (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, there are two issues here: i) your edit summary needs to reflect the changes you've actually made, and should not mislead other editors, so please be more careful in future; ii) whether the sources meet Wikipedia's requirements. The fact that Twerges initially drew attention to the sources has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they meet WP's guidelines or not. If you feel that these sources meet these guidelines, I'd be grateful if you would explain your views at Talk:Primal therapy. Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


One of the items i removed was a book, you were right there. But the other two were blogs or the equivalent personal website. It harms your own side of the matter to rely on such evidence. You have put them back in opposition to consensus to myself and two other good editors. they have been removed numerous times, and i give you a warning that you must not put them in again DGG (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

removal of link[edit]

Aussiewikilady, you recently removed a link I added to the primal therapy article. Could you please explain why you did this? The article it links to contains obviously useful information about the historical background to Janov's work. I don't see why it matters that the article is not neutral, since the article contains numerous links to anti-primal articles and websites, which are also not neutral. I hope you didn't remove the link simply because you don't agree with Bryan's views? Skoojal (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)