User talk:Cirt/Archive 1

Add topic
Active discussions

WelcomeEdit

Welcome!

Hello Cirt, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon   in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may


And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Adambro 20:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Cirt 20:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

ScientologyEdit

Will you be able to trim the excesses of the article and add some of the lesson structure? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. -- Cirt (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, good. I think that since you are active at Wikipedia that will help you figure out where to draw the line with material over there. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Great, it that would be a long process but hopefully I can take advice from more experienced Wikiversity contributors, such as yourself. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fancy seeing you hereEdit

Hello fellow wikiquotian. :) Nice to see you around the 'versity. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thenub314 (talkcontribs) .)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome scriptEdit

What welcome script are you using? I know Twinkle on Wikipedia has a welcome tool built in. Is this similar because I'd like to use it as well? Thanks. :) Devourer09 (t·c) 19:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your interest! ;) It is at User:Cirt/welcome/vector.js. -- Cirt (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Glad to see you welcoming users. You do seem to be welcoming many on account creation, though, without edits to anything; when I did this, a year ago, it was suggested to me that I not do it, wait until the first edit to something else. I think it has to do with creating a lot of user talk pages where the user never again even looks at Wikiversity, but what do you think? See also Wikiversity talk:Welcoming committee; we can reduce labor simply by documenting the last "sweep." --Abd 12:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Alright, that makes sense, sounds like a good plan. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
For me to use this, would I just copy the code to User:Devourer09/welcome/vector.js? Devourer09 (t·c) 18:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I believe so. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your cooperation and collaboration in expanding the landmark Education resource.Edit

Cirt, I appreciate your willingness to collaborate and cooperate in organizing the resource. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You're most welcome, -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You corrected punctuationEdit

This is funny, really. I was a real editor and proofreader, as well as a typographer, used the Chicago Manual of Style. I always put periods and commas inside the punctuation marks. It was the "right" way to do it. I think that the rule may have come from ancient typography, a linotype, if you tried that floating punctuation (that period sitting out there next to nothing), would spit hot lead at you. That's the story, anyway. I just checked the Wikipedia MOS, and it recommends what it calls "logical quotation." Fine with me. I like the idea better than my regular practice, but, notice what I just did. Without even thinking, I put the period inside the quotation mark, when "logical quotation" would have it outside. That's what 50 years of habit will do to you. Old dog. New tricks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for your acknowledgement of my copyediting. -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The Landmark resourceEdit

I'm finding the discussion over the Landmark resource distracting and will be letting go of that for a few days. If you want to take the time to show me what you want to do there, it might be useful. If it's not acceptable to me, and I believe I've communicated what I'll accept and what not, I'll fork it, if you have not already done that. This is far easier than negotiating consensus with someone with undisclosed or hidden agendas, and surely that cuts both ways. Such negotiations readily become train wrecks, hence I'm placing a limit on this. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan, I'm just not sure how to label each page to denote it is a forked page, and proper structuring and ways to link back and forth, etc. Perhaps you could show me an example of a different resource that uses this method? -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I created the fork. As someone may come in on a link to your section, I request that on Landmark Education/Cirt you place a notice that you manage that resource, and disclose any bias (bias can be subtle). If you wish to manage a "normal" resource instead, not attributed to you openly (but only perhaps in History), you'd want to use the "Other" section which is not to be owned. Problem is, if someone abuses that, we might need to do something about it! Basically, the entire Other section should be NPOV, which then requires process to determine that and the whole usual train wreck on a controversial topic. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abd (talkcontribs) .)
Okay, I've modeled it after your wording, DIFF. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Looked fine. Looked to me like you may be bringing content from Wikiquote; that content is probably more appropriate for here. I want to acknowledge you, Cirt, for respecting my suggestions in spite of my habit of writing too much. In my long-term vision, Wikiversity is a place where factions may fully express positions, and what they think relevant to those positions as to evidence. Whatever true consensus is possible can be born and nurtured here, in a place where there isn't competition for prominence. Create the best resource, enjoy the most participation! We've only begun this process with Landmark Education. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging me for doing that! I'm glad we can collaborate positively and constructively on this topic here. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Notice the Template:Scholarly ethics on my User page. It is also possible to place {{Disclosures|[[WV:Progressivism|Progressivism]]}} on a resource, which refers to the scholarly ethics disclosure. It is not essential at this point that this be done, but this shows adherence to Wikiversity traditions. --Abd (discusscontribs) 12:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I dunno, I see you created Wikiversity:Progressivism as recently as September 2013, making the page itself not that historically stable or accepted yet. -- Cirt (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
That's correct, but if you look at the page as created, it was to explain Template:Disclosures as applied to progressivism, There is another template Template:Disclosures/EP which was created in 2006. I'm not sure if I was aware of EP in September. I did not invent the concept of "progressivism" as the default disclosure for Wikiversity, but it is indeed essential to actual practice on Wikiversity, because, otherwise, the creation of educational resources would be massively impeded by attempting to ensure that materials satisfy some official standard. With the progressivism approach, materials that are not neutral, that are in error, incorrect, biased, etc., can be seen as part of the educational process. They are "corrected" by balancing them, not by deleting them or revert warring over them. The approach is far more likely to find consensus than a Wikipedia-like approach of attempting to enforce NPOV on a single topic page. The neutrality here is in the overall process.
Because of relatively low participation here, there hasn't been a lot of conflict to resolve this way, but this does show up in deletion discussions at WV:RFD, typically in requests from those not participating in creating the resource, but wanting it to disappear. I closed a lot of those, and my closures were almost always accepted. People sometimes objected to me closing, but then they were reopened -- I'd always do that if someone else doesn't do it -- and then closed with the same result by someone else, normally. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Understood, I'd just still like to wait on that before using such a new template and its associated page Wikiversity:Progressivism. But thanks for the helpful links, I shall read them over and consider them! -- Cirt (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Look at Template:Disclosures/EP. You could use that one, it was created in 2006. What was new in September of this year was only that I put together a Wikiversity page on Progressivism, to be used with the Disclosures template, and that page consists mostly of quotations from much older Wikversity pages. As I wrote above, I didn't invent this. I merely found it to be not very clearly explained, by the link to the Wikipedia article, which was far too confusing. What was really important is the material taken from Wikiversity:Disclosures, where the "default disclosures" are explained. That page is from 2008, mostly, and was edited by many major early editors. Like a lot of proposed guidelines or policy on Wikversity, it was never formally adopted. It could be useful to review Wikiversity:Wikiversity project proposal. It was idealistic and vague, but what I've been laying out is largely required by that vision. "Discussion" is a critical aspect of scholarly inquiry. --Abd (discusscontribs) 05:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for these links, I shall take some more time to read them over. -- Cirt (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again re your contribution to my section of Landmark EducationEdit

Thanks for adding those links.[1] I see that as highly constructive. I had one of those conversations in mind when I created the page, as an example of internal criticism, what is called "constructive criticism." I can say that the company clearly responded. There is a whole initiative, the New Enterprise, that was born out of some of this discussion and a broader facilitated process, and I've been designated a Brand Champion in communicating the new "brand," which is, of course, a marketing term. It involves, though, creating the reality behind the brand, "making it so," one piece is "excellent customer service." There are many other pieces. Landmark is an enormous enterprise, involving thousands of active volunteers and a much smaller staff. Large structures like that have institutional inertia, so there is a lot of "Old Landmark" left functioning, and that's necessary. Nobody is being fired, kicked out, blamed for doing what worked before, or that was thought to work, that may no longer work. But it is being confronted, when harm is caused. Again, I've been a piece of that, taking flak but generally being confirmed by senior Staff. And, of course, confronting my own "story." --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

So had you come across those links before? -- Cirt (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course, Cirt. I have heavily researched Landmark on the internet, for years, starting from before I took the Forum. See [2], where I posted to the associated Yahoo group, almost a year and a half ago. --Abd (discusscontribs) 04:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see, that is quite encouraging. I'm glad the company is thinking about the fact that, "It was acknowledged that, to some degree, the de facto purpose of Landmark had become registering people into courses." However, for the company to fully realize this attempt to change, the best way to successfully accomplish that, would be to become non-profit. -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
In the Introduction Leader Program training, we watched a video in which a Forum Leader proclaimed that "the business of Landmark is not registering people into courses." The word might not have been "business," it might have been "purpose." Yes, the nonprofit route could be a solution in a place like France, and I wonder that this hasn't been done. There is, however, a problem with the idea, which you may not have considered. We have some idea that nonprofit organizations are somehow more ethical than for-profit businesses, but nonprofits are controlled, commonly, by a fairly tight board, and they frequently become devices for ensuring the financial health of the organization executives. I've served on a nonprofit board and I saw it happen. The ESOP organization of Landmark places ultimate control in the hands of the staff. It's like a collective, i.e., a worker co-op. The entry into that body is generally through a few years of intensive training in the Assisting program. There is high Staff turnover, because the draw from corporate business and other profitable activity is strong. However, being on Staff for a year, if I'm correct, the employee is vested and becomes a shareholder. Because Landmark has never declared a dividend, so it's really about control, not profit. The Board is responsible to the Staff. I suspect that Forum Leaders tend to remain Staff for much longer than regular Center Staff -- though I've heard of some people serving as a Center Manager for decades. Probably the bulk of the stock is owned by Forum Leaders. So Landmark is likely controlled by Forum Leaders, and most people actively participating in Landmark probably like it that way. I do. Every Forum Leader I've met, maybe a dozen or so by now, has been amazing. Clear, compassionate, and, one in particular who was very possibly Erhard's coach, a woman in her seventies who was tough as nails. That is, very frank, direct, and clear, in taking the participant to exactly what they need to see about themselves to be freed from the limitations of their past. --Abd (discusscontribs) 03:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Interesting reflections, fascinating stuff really. If not a non-profit, perhaps the company would be better organized as a declared religion. -- Cirt (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • That definitely wouldn't fly. That it is for-profit does raise some expectations that aren't accurate, but almost every possibility can raise that. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, I think way back when the predecessor organizations and companies were being created, there was some debate about whether to structure it as a religion. -- Cirt (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I've not heard that. Sounds more like Scientology.... I know people who were active then, and I could understand such an idea, but I suspect most graduates would be horrified. Religion is associated with dogma, and the training rejects the idea that it is "true." (The distinctions are neither true nor false.) --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll do some research and try to find the source for it, I may be mistaken of course, but I'll try to double-check my thoughts on this. -- Cirt (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Created category for BomisEdit

Created Category:Bomis, to help catalog pages related to the history of the organization Bomis.

Cheers,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I yanked that category from 1938/Wells because the weird occurrence of a mention of Bomis on a page isn't enough to justify a categorization. I'll also remove that mention of Bomis, it's silly. --Abd (discusscontribs) 03:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Alright, no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Category:Nothing wrong here. We could put it on every page, but I'll just put it here. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, not sure how it helps categorization organization here on Wikiversity, but okay. -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about Landmark categoriesEdit

  • I see that you removed the category, so apparently it was not "okay." Is there something wrong here?
  • Seriously, fun is an essential element of education. The category is used for that, fun. That's all.
  • As to Category:Large-group awareness training, I removed that category from the top level Landmark Education page, because Landmark denies being an LGAT, so this is not rigorously neutral without explanation. You have added the category to your own section, and I created a subpage in my section on the LGAT issue, and popped the category on it, so that it can, there, be presented with some explanation. I hope this is acceptable to you. ––Abd (discusscontribs) 20:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I won't object to or push edit warring regarding the main Landmark Education page, as it's fine to have other pages in the LGAT category instead, the subpages as you've mentioned, but it just is so weird that Landmark denies being an LGAT despite having Steven Zaffron refer to it as an LGAT. And despite having had its predecessor "The Forum" referred to as such in the book that is itself titled Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
That's what I said, Cirt. However, there is another side. That is, the meanings of terms shift with context. The context now is different than the context then. Once upon a time, as another example, "cult" was a positive term.
As to the categories here, the distinction "nothing is wrong here" is a general Landmark distinction. It may or may not be a specific Forum distinction. The Form is an entry level course, part of the Curriculum for Living. "Nothing is wrong here" was most emphasized, as I recall without looking at my notes, in the Excellence seminar. However, the distinction itself is related to and interwoven with many areas of the training. We can have a common category that is affixed to all related pages. LGAT is far too broad, there are many LGATs besides the Landmark courses. Come to think of it, the characterization of Landmark as an LGAT, with the descriptions given of intense, long sessions, really doesn't match the bulk of the training. Probably the most Landmark training hours happening are in the seminar series, and a seminar is ten three hour sessions spread over about three months. The Forum and the Advanced Course are relatively long sessions, effectively three days. Is that "long?" Compared to what? I felt no stress at all, and I was sixty–seven when I took the Forum and Advanced Course. As to "large," some courses are small, they can get down to thirty or forty people or so, possibly sometimes less. I've never been to a very large course, my Forum was under 150. The New York Introduction Leader Program first New York session for me was about three hundred people, who had regular classrooms from all over the Northeast, from Montreal and Canada, and I think it went as far south as Philadelphia. The most intense training in Landmark is one to one. I do it as a coach, and it's done with me, the same. So what is this "large" thing that is presumed to cover the whole banana?
The problem with Category:Landmark Education is that the *company* is now named Landmark Worldwide. But that is a company name, it's not what the company does. What would be a category that would cover the company and the content conveyed? Landmark Education worked for that, well enough. Within the Landmark Community, it's called the "conversation for possibility" or just the "conversation." I vote for Category:Landmark Education with an explanatory note on the category page that the company itself has been renamed. We could even lower case 'education.' ––Abd (discusscontribs) 02:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Category:Landmark Forum works best. It is still the name of their first course and the one most people do that is most known. It's also another w:WP:COMMONNAME for the whole organization in secondary sources. We should avoid the company names due to the tendency for them to be changed by management over time (in what seems to be a similar pattern of the EST founder changing his name, also, over time). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't work best for me. Landmark Education works. Those secondary sources are most often discussing the Forum, one might almost think from them that the Forum is the whole banana. The rest is often called something like "expensive additional courses," even where some of them are free or quite inexpensive.
Consider as the resource is developed, there will be pages covering many different topics, some of which are only related to the Forum in being presented by the same company. An example: "relocation" is a distinction from the Self Expression and Leadership Program. It is totally absent from the Forum, it relates to nothing in the Forum that I can think of. From the perspective of a graduate with more extensive Landmark experience, categorizing all this material as Landmark Forum is like categorizing calculus as Elementary Education.
Right now, the resource is Landmark Education. We could change that to Landmark education, to reflect it no longer being the appropriate proper noun. By the way, there are signs within the organization that the flagship course may soon no longer be called the Forum. There is new technology being tested with pilot courses, one was called Direct Access. "Landmark education" would continue to cover that, "Landmark Forum" was never really a generic overall name. Unless a resource were only about the introductory course, which ours never was, I was in a seminar when I created the course, a seminar called Forum in Action, so, of course, the Forum and Forum distinctions were much of what I was thinking of, and wrote about, but that lasted a couple of months only. I remember being a bit upset, OMG, you mean I'm not done? I was hardly cooked at all, much less done! ––Abd (discusscontribs) 18:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Strongly and respectfully disagree. The company changed its name. It is not Landmark Education anymore. Therefore "Landmark Education" is inappropriate as a name designation. However, the company still uses the name Landmark Forum to refer to the course. Landmark Forum is used in multiple academic and scholarly sources from books on many different academic disciplines to refer to the organization and its associated movement and followers. Prior to Landmark Forum, the followers of the movement were referred to as followers of "The Forum". Thus, it appears "Landmark Forum" has more of a degree of both lasting quality and w:WP:COMMONNAME over and above "Landmark Education", which does not. -- Cirt (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's tempting to dig in my heels and play the Wiki Game. Beat your ***!!! However, not today. We don't have a real equivalent to AN/I here, where I could whine about your Outrageous POV Pushing Behavior, creating Endless Drama and train wreck discussions over tempests in teapots.
A page, for starters, may have more than one category. There are different topics here. I see that you are putting Landmark Forum tags on various pages, including Werner Erhard. I'm a little concerned about creating BLPs on Wikiversity, that can open a can of worms, eh? However, setting that aside, to be handled another time, you seem to have overlooked my actual suggestion. I'm going to go ahead and implement it, creating a category Category:Landmark education. The company is then an example of a Landmark educational company. The term "Landmark" with no qualifier is commonly used when the context is known to be the work of the company and the community as continued from the similar work from est. So we readily talk about "Landmark distinctions." "Forum distinctions" refer only to distinctions introduced in the Forum. In the SELP, the Leader asked us to coach from "SELP distinctions."
The "Landmark education" category, then is a general category for the education itself, the processes and techniques and community involved, and the companies involved. LGAT is, ironically, appropriate as a general category for the mass training courses, the Forum and Advanced Course are reasonably "mass training." But the continued training is not, generally. It becomes reduced to one to one interactions, often. Even the mass trainings are structured to function partly in much smaller groups, i.e., in the Advanced Course, participants are assigned to groups, and much of the course process takes place on a small scale, amalgamated and iterated back and forth. I've never seen an analysis of this, most discussions seem to think that the big meeting is the whole banana, yet that misses the whole point of the Advanced Course (which I'd shallowly summarize as awakening community). Seminars have seminar groups, roughly six people at the start. A "group leader" is selected by the group, who then participates in a weekly group leader meeting. The SELP, the same, except that each group has a more experienced coach as leader. SELP is not an LGAT. It's far more intimate. The largest SELP I've been in started at about 50 participants plus coaches (who also participate, by the way, we have our own projects, do the homework, etc.)
Now, you could possibly justify putting a Landmark Forum tag on, say, Werner Erhard, but how many tags should go on a page? How about Category:Used car salespeople, Category:People with fake German names, or Category:Alleged cult leaders, if we really wanted to make trouble? Or, for that matter, Category:Alleged world saviors, perhaps Category:Awareness training, or, a bit more seriously, Category:Transformative education? (This is what Landmark explicitly calls the training, and it is also a general field, an ex wife of mine recently got a Master's Degree in it, and, yes, she is the one who introduced me to Landmark, she's done that work for almost twenty years.)
I'm going to add some categories to my section and perhaps to the top level resource, if I think they will enjoy consensus. Thanks, again, for taking an interest in Wikversity resources. Nothing wrong here. You may remove the disabling colon from that category if you like, or perhaps there is something wrong here? If there is, please let me know. —Abd (discusscontribs) 15:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Abd, of course I've got no problems with you adding categories to your section. I'd like to discuss your idea further of your ideas for what category names should be. Abd, you and I have been able to come to compromise solutions in the past, despite our differences in POV. I would hope that you can still communicate with me politely and with an open mind, and with the goal of coming to additional compromises in the future. I've never heard the term "Landmark education" used with a lowercase "education", it's not a w:WP:COMMONNAME, and it seems only like an invented term, a term invented perhaps by yourself out of convenience. However, what if the company name changes again? And again? And again? This is a problem of an organization that has a history of name changes, started by an individual who himself has a history of name changes. -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course, as to cooperation and compromise. What I'd like to start with is considering what we are talking about categorizing. A company name can change, but it is still the same company, perhaps. Or is it? The Forum was never other than the introductory course, the entry ticket, so to speak, to a curriculum. What is the curriculum? The set of courses, Forum, Advanced Course, Self Expression and Leadership Program, and the Seminar series, are called the "Curriculum for Living," but Landmark education is not limited to those courses, by far. The Communications Curriculum is two courses that are roughly equivalent in cost and course time to the Forum and Advanced Course, plus added to this is TMLP, the Team Management and Leadership Program. There is the Wisdom curriculum, which is similarly priced when one considers the course time involved. It's expensive because it is essentially equivalent to six Forums, and that's about what it costs.
  • And, of course, there is the famous Assisting Program, with the Introduction Leader Program as the most intense aspect of assisting. There are less formal trainings for Course Supervisor, there are more advanced Leader trainings, including large meetings, about which I know little, the ticket into those is serving as an Introduction Leader. These advanced trainings typically have no "cost," other than getting there. The ILP has, formally, a $100 cost for each of the four work days. They don't actually ask for the payment, which is formally waived if travel costs exceed $100, and as I was on the edge financially when I did this program, as I am now, I was told to simply make my own adjustment, even though I paid under $100 for actual travel. (The big cost in New York is accomodations for the night). Nobody gets ejected for failure to pay. I was never asked about it.
  • All of this, I'm suggesting, can be considered a single entity. How is it termed within Landmark? I'm telling you that it is routinely, called "Landmark education," or "this education." It's also called "the training." It is never called "Erhard Seminars Training," nor is it called "est," unless people are referring back to those origins. I don't capitalize "education" in this reference because it's clear that the word education is being used descriptively, not as part of the proper noun. "Landmark" is the proper noun. And it is still Landmark, in the short form, what they changed was the formal full company name, they remain, routinely, in conversation, simply "Landmark." We would never say, "Landmark Worldwide training." In the training, it is suggested that we call the Forum, the "Landmark Forum." Two proper nouns, so both are capitalized.
  • So, no, Cirt, I'm not just making this up. You can cite source after source for "Landmark Forum," because that is most widely discussed. The same sources, particularly critical ones, will mention that Landmark will also "try to sell you "other courses." They won't say that "Landmark Forum will try to sell you...." What are those courses? They are obviously not the Forum! They are not called the Forum, except that there is one seminar among many, called "Forum in Action." That seminar is unique in that it simply reviews the Forum distinctions, in ten weekly three hour sessions plus perhaps a half hour small group call, over three months (that's typical seminar setup).
  • I did take the Forum in Action seminar, as my "free seminar." I figure it cost me about $500 in travel, I live over two hours from the Boston Center, but I chose that seminar, instead of one in Connecticut that is only an hour away, because of the person leading it. He is the Assistant Director of Outpatient Psychiatry at Boston Medical Center, if I have it right. Cirt, this is something else that Pressman covers up: the quality of people who do this work. I now do only seminars in CT, and often get there free.
  • As I've written, LGAT doesn't cover it, because much or most of the extended work does not take place in large groups, and it is a serious question, for me, how significant is the "large group" aspect of the training. The Forum and Advanced Course and certain other courses are done as large groups, but is this essential? "Group" is probably essential. But the minimum group is two people. I don't think it is possible or prudent to do it alone. That's why, I suspect, there is no Book to follow. I have never heard mention in any Landmark event of Zaffron's book, as an example. It could even be dangerous, my opinion.
  • "Transformative learning" is a widely used term for the class of education, and Landmark itself also formally calls the education "transformative learning," that's in the Introduction format. Remarkably, the Wikipedia article mentions no specific major training programs. For a page in which Landmark emphasizes "transformative learning," see [3]. —Abd (discusscontribs) 17:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
This site is an academic based resource. Therefore I still think we should defer to the prominence of terms used on secondary sources by academic scholars. Landmark Forum is the best term to use for this, per w:WP:COMMONNAME. -- Cirt (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Category workEdit

Doing some category work, helping to categorize previously uncategorized categories listed at Special:UncategorizedCategories.

Hopefully this is helpful work that other can then build upon and help to categorize in better or more specific categories.

Cheers,

-- Cirt (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Went through a bunch, will go back through another pass at Special:UncategorizedCategories to try to cut down more on the backlog. As of last check there were about 344 uncategorized categories on Wikiversity. -- Cirt (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cirt! Thanks for your efforts on updating categories. One point to be aware of. Computer Science is specific to the study of computers themselves, typically software development, hardware engineering, etc. Information Technology is applied computer concepts. Therefore, IT Service and Support is Information Technology rather than Computer Science. I'll make the change. Thanks again! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey there Dave Braunschweig, thanks for the advice! And certainly feel free to make any changes, most appreciated! :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow! Nice to see you here Cirt! Well, thank you for your work here and english wikiquote, much appreciate. I am also surprised that you are not a sysop here, if you are active enough, you may request the right. Thanks! --~~Goldenburg111 17:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Your words are most kind, Goldenburg111, thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Cirt/Archive 1".