User:456hjk

The next section was taken from pseudodaoist(jonathon) talk page.

Graphology

Please try to assume good faith when dealing with other editors on this page. I see you throwing the word "vandalism" around a bit in edit summaries there, when reverting edits that aren't vandalism. For example: [1], [2], and [3]. Please take note of WP:OWN and assume that these users are trying to improve the article. They appear to be good faith efforts, for the most part. Just because you do not agree with something, does not mean it is "vandalism". Also, keep in mind WP:3RR and note that further revert warring could lead to blocking of your and / or other accounts, or protection of the page. Thanks , Rjd0060 (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

a) The first article that is cited, contains quotes that were not made by the people to which they are attributed. The second article that is cited is a general criticism of graphology, none of which are supported by citations to the literature in the field. This cite might be useful in a discussion of specific objections to the field. The third citation is about the differences between QDE and personality evaluation. The fourth citation has one paragraph about graphology. "graphology, which claims that personality, ability, and moral stature can be discerned from the configuration of one’s handwriting, has also been thoroughly discredited," Beyerstein (1992) criticizes the field because it does not accept the research that indicates that graphology might have some validity! None of these are appropriate as citations of research studies in the field. Beyerstein (1992) is cited in Effect size, as a specific objection to graphology.jonathon (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

b) The discussions on the archived talk page indicate that the article is biased against graphology. The material I deleted reinforced the position that the article is slanted against graphology.jonathon (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not "vandalism". - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

When the edits are deliberately disruptive, then it is vandalism.jonathon (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bunge did say that. Please, stop laying. 190.51.135.192 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bunge also ignored the evidence in support of the validity of handwriting analysis. jonathon (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

At least now you are admiting you were laying. are not you? 190.51.135.192 (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You said: "The third citation is about the differences between QDE and personality evaluation."

You might have a problem with your browser, the third reference says this:

Forensic Document Examination v. Graphology

Graphologists claim to be able to determine personality traits based on an examination of your handwriting. I personally have as much faith in this as I do the astrological forecasts in the newspaper...in other words, not much.

But I still read my horoscope occasionally. Why? Because it's fun! So if you want to have a graphologist examine your handwriting, go ahead. Enjoy yourself.

But asking a graphologist to do Forensic Document Examination is like asking an astrologer to help you land a rocket on the moon. Graphologists and Forensic Document Examiners look at some of the same things (handwriting) but using different methods and for different purposes.

190.51.184.98 (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)