Misplaced Pages

User talk:JPLogan: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:32, 29 October 2005 editAction potential (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers9,090 editsm →[]: reduce to test3 warning← Previous edit Revision as of 04:25, 30 October 2005 edit undoJPLogan (talk | contribs)181 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 43: Line 43:


Your last revert had misleading comments, and added misleading content to wikipedia (Morgan). regards, --] 02:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Your last revert had misleading comments, and added misleading content to wikipedia (Morgan). regards, --] 02:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


==To non-promotional NLP editors==
Hello non nlp promotional editors. Progress has been good as regards mediation and they will continue to improve as long as we all stay cool.

*Since the article has been well covered and cited, and those citations have been verified multiple times even in mediation, it is time to accept the facts. The mediation requests have been satisfied as regards citations, and there are clearly more to come that can satisfy them further. However, it is clear that some NLP promoters are using whatever tactic they can to antagonize even after statements from the mediator, they try to make it appear that questions have not been answered, to add hyperbole and jargon, and generally confuse conclusive scientific findings by adding minor single and irrelevant speculative NLP studies. They also seem to be attempting to break the 100Kilobite barrier on file size.

*The solution is to stay cool, take a harder scientific line (exclude single minor speculative studies) and do not stand for any self-desctructive NLPpromotional nonsense. NLP is about neuro, linguistics (neurolinguistics) and programming. It uses scientific sounding jargon and misplaced concepts in a confusing way, and therefore must be clarified using scientific studies, neurology, psychology and other reliable and neutral sources.

*The solid evidence presented has indeed been covered in the archives multiple times. If an NLP promoter insists that they have not had their question answered when it has been covered before, simply stay cool and refer them to the archives.

*If an NLP promoter insists that the scientific studies are wrong, or that science is wrong in general, then they are using a pseudoscientific argument, and can be directed to the archives.

*If an NLP promoter makes multiple edits in order to make editing harder then simply revert. If it is convenient, try not to delete any valid edits in the process, but if it is not convenient, simply revert the lot.

*Do your best to help the mediator as NLP is deliberately very confusing. Provide help with seperating obscurantist jargon from real neurology or psychology, and help with the identification of hype and pseudoscientific argument and NLP excuses.

*Considering the rigor of the present article (though the 2000 section still needs checking and making concise) it is clear that further NPOV clarifying and brevifying can occur. Best regards ] 04:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:25, 30 October 2005

Welcome!

Hello, JPLogan, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Alai 05:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

"kind of energy"

Why did you removed the links to "kind of energy" on the NLP article? --Comaze 03:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I find this statement offensive, "Perhaps somebody could remove Comaze." Please remove it. And also read official policy (Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks).

Alternatives from Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks

Instead, try:

  • Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. This does not mean that you have to agree with the other person, but just agree to disagree.
  • Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is.
  • Explore issues in a less public forum like e-mail if a debate threatens to become personal.
  • Read Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.
--Comaze 00:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of facts (Neuro-linguistic Programming)

JPLogan, you just accused me of deleting facts in your edit comments, see here . When I did not remove any facts at all. Could you please give me more information on how I deleted facts. best regards, --Comaze 03:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Comaze. You have deleted more facts than any other editor I have ever met on wikipedia. You have acted with a flagrant disregard for NPOV on more occasions than I have even visited wikipedia. If you don't know when you are deleting facts, you should not be editing at all.JPLogan 04:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


With regard to the NLP article, maybe check out Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/FT2 for a possible proposed approach to the loggerheads and flames? FT2 08:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

A fresh start.

I've removed the sockpuppet warning on your page. Because I no longer suspect that you are an impersonator of HeadleyDown. My appologies for this misunderstanding. I also want to call a truce with you, and hope start fresh with a effort to entertain a professional / scholarly discussion. From what you have written, I suspect that you have a great deal of knowledge in the area of ethics and counseling, and would be a great resource to the wikipedia effort to produce high quality articles. I hope that we can put our content disputes behind us. I suspect that a good deal of knowledge on ethics in counseling and ethics and your input would be invaluable given the proper will, context and environment. best regards, --Comaze 06:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic Programming

Please stop making test edits to Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism, which, under Misplaced Pages policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox.

Your last revert had misleading comments, and added misleading content to wikipedia (Morgan). regards, --Comaze 02:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


To non-promotional NLP editors

Hello non nlp promotional editors. Progress has been good as regards mediation and they will continue to improve as long as we all stay cool.

  • Since the article has been well covered and cited, and those citations have been verified multiple times even in mediation, it is time to accept the facts. The mediation requests have been satisfied as regards citations, and there are clearly more to come that can satisfy them further. However, it is clear that some NLP promoters are using whatever tactic they can to antagonize even after statements from the mediator, they try to make it appear that questions have not been answered, to add hyperbole and jargon, and generally confuse conclusive scientific findings by adding minor single and irrelevant speculative NLP studies. They also seem to be attempting to break the 100Kilobite barrier on file size.
  • The solution is to stay cool, take a harder scientific line (exclude single minor speculative studies) and do not stand for any self-desctructive NLPpromotional nonsense. NLP is about neuro, linguistics (neurolinguistics) and programming. It uses scientific sounding jargon and misplaced concepts in a confusing way, and therefore must be clarified using scientific studies, neurology, psychology and other reliable and neutral sources.
  • The solid evidence presented has indeed been covered in the archives multiple times. If an NLP promoter insists that they have not had their question answered when it has been covered before, simply stay cool and refer them to the archives.
  • If an NLP promoter insists that the scientific studies are wrong, or that science is wrong in general, then they are using a pseudoscientific argument, and can be directed to the archives.
  • If an NLP promoter makes multiple edits in order to make editing harder then simply revert. If it is convenient, try not to delete any valid edits in the process, but if it is not convenient, simply revert the lot.
  • Do your best to help the mediator as NLP is deliberately very confusing. Provide help with seperating obscurantist jargon from real neurology or psychology, and help with the identification of hype and pseudoscientific argument and NLP excuses.
  • Considering the rigor of the present article (though the 2000 section still needs checking and making concise) it is clear that further NPOV clarifying and brevifying can occur. Best regards JPLogan 04:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)