Talk:Clare W. Graves: Difference between revisions

Due to possible copyright, intellectual property and trademark conflicts with this page I have deleted it's content. The owner of http://clarewgraves.com has pointed out some of the possible conflicts. Please do no restore the page

update: 03/18/04. owner of clarewgraves.com, gave ok to restore page as is. Page has been restored.

Please give a bill of sales to prove this page is okay to continue or it should be deleted or retailored to have non-copyrighted information.

This article was proposed for deletion on Dec. 20, 2006. The reason given was "original research." --Alksub 09:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forrestlane42. You have now PRODed this twice. This is not allowed. If the PROD is removed as it was by Alksub, you need to take it to afD, which you are obviously at liberty to do. Personally, I would not support this as Clare Graves is referenced in published books. It is far from original research, all of which is contained in published papers by Graves and books by ECLET press. There does not seem to be any copyright violation with the above site as far as I can tell, so permission from the site owner is irrelevant. It is conventional to say something on the the talk page around why it should be deleted. --Backface 14:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backface, what does PRODed this twice mean? How can it be irrelevant if the above notes speaks of permission from the site owner obvious there is so sort of copyright issue, and lastly look at the potential section....its even worse than Wilber's page. still learning wikipedia ways. -ForrestLane42 22:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

There is no copyright issue whatsoever. The site owner thought there might be, but the site owner was wrong. Later, the site owners actually came and edited this page themselves (including adding the paragraph that was deleted below).

This is MASSIVELY ANNOYING. So much so, that I say screw it. Delete the whole damn thing, I really don't care. I will certainly never, ever contribute a page to Wikipedia again, so long as this type of attitude persists. User:Samrose

In many respects, the work of Clare W. Graves marks a beginning and invitation to go further rather than a definitive statement or conclusion. Like his model, his work is open-ended and unfinished. Fortunately, the questions Graves sought to answer in relative isolation are now being broadly asked, and his point of view begins to resonate as the answers he found fit today's world. He was not a prophet nor a seer, but a rigorous old-school researcher with a mind, as he said, "out of its time."

Here is the paragraph above - This reads like a sermon, self-advertisement, and only seeks to give integralism an grandfather to their thought. -ForrestLane42 22:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

I realize this is only the talk page, but please be careful how you use the term integralism, which is quite different from integral thought. I would hate to think that this is symptomatic (if not indeed the cause) of your apparent general bias against all things "integral". --Grey 10:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, grey hate to think that this indicates of your pro-wilber bias, no I am fully aware of integralism, could indicate some far-right party, I use it because it is easier to write for me. Grey, I am beginning to wonder are you wikistalking me? ForrestLane42 23:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

Paragraph gone - all is well. no need to delete whole article. --Backface 14:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not the whole article just that paragraph, backface. -ForrestLane42 14:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]