I invite you...
To take a look at this .
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)
- Zonbalance has not edited in two days. Give it a few more days, and we'll see if he has made an effort to discuss via the talk page. If not, then I will unprotect the page. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
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 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) 05:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I failed to notice this edit of you 
You are welcome, Twerges.
IMO great articles can be created if well intentioned and civil editors with opposing views meet and work together.
If you need anything, please drop a line.
Hi Twerges, I just wanted to comment on your statement that "I only object to the insertion of an edit warrior's personal observations into the page". I think the real issue is the reliability of the source in question, and I wanted to explain.
Since I see you're a computer programmer, let me use an illustrative example from that field.
Suppose that we include Donald Knuth's opinion in an article about algorithmic analysis, quoting The Art of Computer Programming. Perfectly valid, I'm sure you'll agree. Now suppose, for the sake of argument, that Knuth is an editor on WP (for all I know, he may be), and that he edits that article. Does this mean that it's no longer valid to include this quotation, for the sole reason that he also edits WP's page? That doesn't make much sense to me: the article shouldn't suffer just because of who edits it. (Of course, if there are good arguments for excluding it, and Knuth edit wars to insert it, then behavioural issues may need to be addressed.) The obvious conclusion, I think, is that the decision about whether to include Knuth's opinion should depend on whether his book meets WP:RS and WP:V, not on whether Knuth edits WP's page on the subject.
Now, it's rather improbable, but suppose for the sake of argument that Knuth also created an anonymous website which failed to meet the requirements of WP policies and guidelines (perhaps for similar reasons as this site). In this case, we shouldn't include opinions from this particular site. But again, that's not because the author also edits WP, it's because the site fails to meet WP policy.
Finally, on an unrelated note, "worse than placebo" may not mean "harmful". There's some evidence that certain placebos may be better than nothing. There's a very interesting book by Toby Murcott, entitled The Whole Story (ISBN 1-4039-4500-4), but I'm afraid that I can't remember the details. Jakew (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I just want to comment on your editing and comments twerges. I do not agree that the quote or link (re:cohort observations) should be removed and I believe you are presenting misleading arguments and accusing editors of duplicity and behavioural problems, in the effort to remove criticism from the section on primal therapy called criticism. 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? 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 (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edit to the Arthur Janov article
Twerges, I have undone your recent edit to the Arthur Janov article. I think Aussiewikilady made the correct edit, and I was disappointed to see you reverse it. I'm not sure that this was a properly considered decision. It's standard in articles about controversial writers for criticism to be placed in separate criticism sections, not in accounts of their lives. Skoojal (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm deleted some of the additional entries in the criticism section. Material sourced to a personal blog is unacceptable for this, as is minor comments in unauthoritative reviews in unauthoritative sources. Pleasedont put them back. They are not in the least necessary. and I remind you about 3RR. It applies when you're right just as much as when you're wrong. DGG (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Center for Feeling Therapy
Twerges, you recently added the "cult" category to the Center for Feeling Therapy. In my view this is ridiculous. The Center for Feeling Therapy was about psychotherapy. It is only a 'cult' within a revisionist definition of that term, and no matter how strongly you may feel that it should be attacked by being labeled one, this is a dreadful idea. Expect me to remove that category in the near future. Skoojal (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The Lives of John Lennon
Twerges, I've recently asked a question on the Arthur Janov talk page; I'd appreciate it if you would respond to this. I'm considering using Albert Goldman's The Lives of John Lennon as a source for the article, but I want to be sure that there is general agreement that this is a good idea before I start making major changes. Skoojal (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Twerges, just to let you know that I've been working on a rewrite for the Primal Therapy article for a while now, but after wading through reams of reference material and struggling to beat what I've learned into a coherent piece, I've decided I'm really not happy with the result and I probably need to start over. Since this project has already been a serious distraction from things I really want to do on the encyclopedia, and I wasn't terribly interested in the topic to begin with, I find that I'm currently burned out on the topic and need to step away from it for a while. Since I will also be busy for the next few weeks, I expect I won't be able to get back to the article now until the new year, so my apologies for the delay.
BTW, I see what you mean about how the article has been gutted. I went back and had a look at the article from last January and although that version had plenty of problems, it was considerably more evenhanded than the one-sided screed that the article currently consists of. I'd consider just rolling it back to an earlier version for now, but I'm not sure if that's a good idea as it needs a rewrite too and then if I want to replace it later there might be more opposition. So I think perhaps the best thing is just to leave the article as it is for now, with the POV tag, until I can find the time to do a more thorough reconstruct. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Psychogenic non-epileptic seizures
Twerges, I was confused to see this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychogenic_non-epileptic_seizures&diff=275989814&oldid=274424120) which removed information that was referenced properly. Was that intentional? Also "rv" is often used as a shorthand for "revert vandalism" or more broadly just "revert", when I'd say the edit was more of a deletion than a revert. If you're interested to work on this article I'd be grateful? --PaulWicks (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
On Churchill and prepositions
Enjoyed the edit summary here, but I didn't think the old layout was a particularly egrecious example of mangling the language. Might be better just removing that whole clause, what with it being unsourced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)