| Revision as of 12:21, 15 November 2006 editAction potential (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers9,090 edits →Recent reverts on NLP: neutral?← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:34, 15 November 2006 edit undoAlanBarnet (talk | contribs)762 edits →Recent reverts on NLPNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| It uses verifiable and reliable sources, and is written using neutral language. How do you justify your opinion writing in your suggested section? ] 10:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | It uses verifiable and reliable sources, and is written using neutral language. How do you justify your opinion writing in your suggested section? ] 10:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I don't agree that the language is neutral. And there are much more reliable sources available for those techniques. I've expanded my reasoning on the talk page. --] 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | :I don't agree that the language is neutral. And there are much more reliable sources available for those techniques. I've expanded my reasoning on the talk page. --] 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| I replied to your objections. Basically consensus or agreement does not trump NPOV policy. Sorry. ] 12:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:34, 15 November 2006
Recent reverts on NLP
I fixed up the language on the techniques section of the NLP article. Only to have it reverted by you without discussion. I'll work on another revision of it and post that tomorrow. Please discuss it before reverting. --Comaze 10:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The rules in the policy pages are clear. You will need to read up on language improvement first. NPOV policy page is the best, and there is a lot more you could do about words to avoid - also there is a lot of blurb with no sourcing, you seem to know the subject a bit so I suggest finding sources for that pretty pronto. AlanBarnet 10:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have access to Psychinfo (OVID), so I can look it up here. I'll rewrite that Techniques section and make sure it is in line with the style/source before posting it. Your edits to the scope section were fine. Please add the {{fact}} to any views that require citations. --Comaze 10:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm working with the actual quotes given in that patterns section. It fits policy perfectly. Any rewriting will need discussion first so best post it in the discussion section. AlanBarnet 10:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with your view on the current patterns section. The format is not within the style guidelines, and it it appears to portray an unbalanced view. How can you say it fits policy perfectly? --Comaze 10:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It uses verifiable and reliable sources, and is written using neutral language. How do you justify your opinion writing in your suggested section? AlanBarnet 10:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't agree that the language is neutral. And there are much more reliable sources available for those techniques. I've expanded my reasoning on the talk page. --Comaze 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I replied to your objections. Basically consensus or agreement does not trump NPOV policy. Sorry. AlanBarnet 12:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)