User talk:Mforman30

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Integral Psychotherapy

Hello Mforman30. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Integral Psychotherapy".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Integral Psychotherapy}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

You should always add an edit summary for each edit so other editors can better understand what you are doing.

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Integral theory (Ken Wilber) did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will do so, though I am saving periodically so as not to lose work and many of the edit summaries will be redundant in that they involve conceptual clarification and changing language usage to reflect the way things are actually described/narrated in Integral literature. For example, no one refers to the Four Quadrant model a "grid". Just one example. Mforman30 (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I suggest you do the work in your own sandbox, and only add it to the article when it is complete. Skyerise (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding books as their own sources

When you add a publication to a list and say things about it, you should cite a third party source such as a review. You can't source a summary of a book, especially any claim to importance or association with a theory or other book, to the book itself. You need a third party source about the book. Skyerise (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilber's basic problems

Wilber mixes models, theories and traditions which are basically incompatible. He's doing so by giving incorrect summaries and overviews of al those theories and traditions. But his basic problem is that his transpersonal stages are not structural developmental stages, or even "stages"; nor do they follow after the structural stages; they are parallel events. Cut the model in two, disentangle the traditions described in the transpersonal stages, and picture them next to the structural stages. Same for the models that describe collective development. The result may not be a neat (at least, from the outside) theoretic building, but at least you see the sun shine again. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All these topics and more have been debated and written about for 25+ years. You suffer from a relatively shallow reading which is not had in an interpersonal environment where you will encounter serious counter arguments - i.e. an academic community. For example, you probably know nothing of the work of Cook-Greuter or Terri O'Fallon on late (spiritual) stages. Seriously, it is bad form to babysit and gatekeep a theory page which you have devoted very little real work or investigation to, which you simply don't have any sympathy for. This can't be normal Wikipedia protocol - send the most cynical person to each page. Just reading Wilber is the beginning of an academic pursuit, not the end of it where you decide your opinion in isolation of a "community of the adequate". Mforman30 (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Skyerise. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to collaborate when there are so many misunderstandings and misrepresentations being made. The tone of the article as I originally found it was highly biased towards the negative, not representing the facts or the context of the issues fairly or accurately. Please understand how poor this article was constructed given any advanced knowledge of the subject. Were this piece submitted for any kind of academic review it would be badly rejected and requiring of serious revision. I can only imagine Wikipedia values fairness and balance, so that is what I am trying to offer.

For example, Zimmerman was painted as making an authoritative statement that integral is "irrelevant" and has no influence in academia when the statement was made in 2005 - 20 years ago! And there was no contextualization of that statement as representing one person's mere opinion two decades old. That is just one example of many.

I do not know how to respond to notes. There is no obvious thing to click. But one note - number 6 - is important to respond to. The notions of "lines of development" does not contradict structural theories. In fact, Piaget himself originally included a similar concept called "decalages" - inconsistencies - that granted that a person may use different levels of cognition for different tasks or different domains. Almost every developmentalist following Piaget uses a version of this concept, it is both empirically validated and widely accepted. Wilber's "lines" is just one version of this idea - it may be debated but it is not contradictory at all in-and-of-itself. I do not think it will serve the article to detail this point by adding a bunch of references, but it could be added.

Why do topics that already have Wikipedia pages now require citations where apparently none were needed before I started to revise things? It looks like unnecessary work. There are many topics on this page that simply link to other Wikipedia articles. So I have to add primary sources when you are saying I need tertiary sources? Which is it? Mforman30 (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest management

Please note that editors with a conflict of interest should not cite their own publications. If you wish to add material cited to your own publications, you should propose the addition on the talk page and let other editors decide whether to add the material or not. You are of course free to add material cited to your peers.

Hello, Mforman30. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Integral theory, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My publication was highly relevant, not self-serving. But I don't care if it was removed. The other addition of my 2008 article with Esbjorn-Hargens was added by somebody else.

To say more: I don't know how an article could be done by someone with no connection to the ideas involved. I have to imagine that many content experts have edited different articles over the years. Who else could do it when it comes to difficult subjects? Unless the credo of Wikipedia is that it is a site that only publishes amateur opinions. I have never heard that as its goal before. Mforman30 (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't publish any editor's opinions at all: it publishes summaries of the opinions found in reliable sources. When a published researcher edits an article in a field, they try to conform it to their own personal view, rather than include the broad range of possibly disparate views published by peers they don't agree with. That's a problem. Skyerise (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2o24

You keep removing citation requests wtihout providing a citation. That's what this warning is about. If you don't provide a citation right in the place the citation request is, you must leave the request there.

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Integral theory, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are also breaking citations. If a citation is listed under Works cited, you must reference it with an {{sfn}} template. Don't add it again in ref tags, as that creates a duplicate citation error. Skyerise (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers

Mr. PhD, you need to provide page numbers with your citations. You are also continuing to cause citation errors by duplicating citation which are already listed as sources at the end of the article. Please learn to use {{sfn}} templates properly or I will simply start reverting your whole edit until you do it right. It's not my job to clean up after your unskillful edits. Skyerise (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You linked me to a huge article utilizing html. You expect

me to understand this? I'm not a programmer. Is there an intelligible version of this for the non-coder?

Is this how Wilipedia gate keeps? Asking for a reference style no one else in the world uses, throw in a coding layer, and just lets its pages be dominated by poorly informed coders? Mforman30 (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Page numbers for what? For specific parts of whole texts? Page numbers should only be required for direct quotes, which I haven't used. APA or Chicago style referencing, either way that is the academic standard. I'm not rereading whole texts to find specific words - that's nuts. Mforman30 (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis is not permitted

You added a citation to the sentence "This division between ultimate and relative truth borrows from the two truths doctrine of Buddhism" that was a basic reference to what the two truths are, but it didn't mention integral theory. The fact that needed citation was that integral theory borrowed the concept of the two truths. Adding a citation that just describes the two truths without explicitly stating that integral theory borrowed from it is intellectually dishonest and violates our policy against original research. Any source you cite must explicitly support the facts as stated. I've removed the whole sentence, since apparently nobody can provide support for it if you can't. Skyerise (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are factual references out there but the easiest to locate are on YouTube. It's not a major point really, so do whatever you'd like. Mforman30 (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]