Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:40, 24 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)

Are you willing to get a third opinion on this? I think my version of that section was closer to NPOV than they version you keep inserting. Nonetheless, I'll rework it. NPOV says that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."WP:NPOV --Comaze 02:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, third opinions are fine by me. What I have included has improved the article. AlanBarnet 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I want to work with you on this. If we come to any significant disagreements on the page let's use see if we can work it out first and use WP:3PO as a secondary method. Also, let's see if we can work on different sections of the article to bring them up to scratch. I believe that you are editing in good faith given that most of your recent edits have improved the article. BTW, I don't think you are one of the banned editors (as per below). --Comaze 04:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to work with any editor here you will have to stop deleting information as it is quoted in the sources. Your reasons for doing so are highly transparent as I have worked out how to check your history and your reasons for deleting or changing are not supported by any of the information from the sources I have gathered or the rest of the article. I see that the user Woohookitty has come to similar conclusions as myself. I will see about that third opinion myself. AlanBarnet 13:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked the sources myself and my reasons are within policy. Rather than blanket reverting please tag any disputed statements with "dubious" or "fact" tags. I have some spare time now so I'm going to work on the article. If you want to work on specific section then please let me know what section and I'll leave it for a while. Otherwise, I'll be doing alot of changes over the next few days. It is probably best if you wait until then to do any copyediting. --Comaze 14:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Banned from editing Neuorlinguistic Programming

Hi AB,

Are you the user previously known as HeadleyDown or any other user banned from Misplaced Pages? 58.179.189.82 23:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No I never got banned from anything in my life. Who are you by the way? AlanBarnet 10:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice try but you're not fooling anyone. Stop your campaign here. You're wasting your life. Your mother didn't get you into Hong Kong university so you could troll your life away. Unless you plan to police the article for the rest of your life you got WP:SNOW. 58.178.104.174 03:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

NLP

I want nothing to do with that article. I had my fill and then some. --Woohookitty 14:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see your wisdom. AlanBarnet 14:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop! I'm currenting doing a fact and reference check. --Comaze 14:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No Comaze your deletions will get reverted if you persist with the warped changes. You are the one making odd changes so you should be the one trying to persuade on the discussion page so that we can assess such dubious stuff. AlanBarnet 14:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No AB, it's you who is stirring up a war on the NLP article. It's getting high time that you were checkusered and banned again. You not only fit the profile of the HKU banned users but you are doing identical edits. All users should simply ignore and revert you. 58.178.104.174 03:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoever you are, you are definitely on the wrong foot. User Woohookitty has said it pretty straight and the NLP article is being pushed into a promo booklet style which is very much like the NLP books on the shelf - lots of promo but no delivery and no real science. That is not encyclopedic writing and should be removed from Misplaced Pages. I have just adopted user Woohookitty's attitude and will police this article in the most efficient way possible (without having to deal with committed pov pushers constantly). You and Comaze definitely have non-neutral arguments and due to your last comments here I will push for Comaze to be tested for sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Sorry but you pushed too hard. AlanBarnet 01:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You've been around less than two weeks and you're arguing the finer points of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry? Yeah right! Like that's newbie behaviour. Your edits are entirely predictable as one of the returned banned users. There's no one else complaining about Comazes editing on the article, and in fact he has been commended by a couple of editors. Woohookitty's attitude is to be sick of blocking returned banned users like yourself. You are nothing like him.

The threat you made of stalking Comaze's editing on the NLP article is entirely unacceptable behaviour on Misplaced Pages -- but you already knew that. You've been around the block... pun intended. 58.178.144.203 05:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What threat exactly? I do not threaten people on the Internet. Stalking is a criminal offence where I come from so your allegation is serious. Back it up or back off. I spent a lot of time answering the call to verify certain facts on this article and I even purchased literature to do so. I found that a lot of the article was not supported and I discovered that a lot of info in the history tab was perfectly supported so I put it onto the article. So far the only time well spent was looking up the rules of NPOV on Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately those rules dont seem to apply to articles that describe new age cults. I am not going to waste my time dealing with you or Comaze every day. As regards commendations Woohookitty has already said enough. If Comaze was anything more than a promo pusher then Woohookitty would not call this article a lost cause. AlanBarnet 05:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)