This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Action potential (talk | contribs) at 12:18, 9 November 2005 (→Please withdraw this statement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:18, 9 November 2005 by Action potential (talk | contribs) (→Please withdraw this statement)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome!
Hi DaveRight! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing!
That was a canned welcome speech; I hope the rest of your time on WP is more enjoyable. DS 02:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Discuss before reverting (especially engrams)
Dave, Please discuss changes before reverting. This topic is quite controversal. Especially your addition on engram which is a central concept in Scientology (not NLP). NLP (especially Grinder) actually prefers Computationalism, essentially the mind is a Turing Machine. Computationalism comes Noam Chomsky's Transformational Grammar (John Grinder, the co-founder of NLP did his PhD in Transformational Grammar). --Comaze 02:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Comaze. Leave my discussion page alone. I can read your propaganda on the NLP discussion page already. Computationalism also recognises the engram concept. As a wikipedia editor you are supposed to welcome newcomers and make it easy for them to add and edit. You are discouraging and restricting. If you post any more warnings on my discussion page, I will report it directly to the arbitrators. You are also the worst example of an encyclopedia editor that I have ever seen. You are a great example of a very bad editor, and your comments can be used to warn people about what kind of things you can say and do to get banned from wikipedia.DaveRight 05:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't want to clutter up the discussion page with items that have already been discussed at length. I don't know where you get this idea of engram from, maybe you are confusiong engram with enneagram (a personality typing system)? A simple search on google proves my point... NLP+engram (440) v. NLP+enneagram (60,000) . For NLP+engram, HeadleyDown's talk page is No.1 result. Don't you think that it is very interesting? If you want to take this matter to arbitration that's fine. But let's try and sort this out first. Also, when you say, "Computationalism also recognises the engram concept." What is your source for this? My sources state that the connectionists who research memory traces (ie. engrams) in mental activity choose to ignore cogitivists idea of computationalism that the mind is essentially a Turing Machine. --Comaze 00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
punishment
DaveRight, regarding this recent revert by you: with the edit summary of "Two big compromises in one day are quite enough. I think that deserves some punishment".
This indicates a possible WP:POINT violation. i.e. disrupting wikipedia to make a point.
NPOV trumps any compromise you may have made. NPOV trumps any consensus or support you have gotten to vote for your version of the article. NPOV trumps any "quid pro quo" you think you deserve in an article.
Please review WP:POINT and NPOV policy. There will be no more "punishments". FuelWagon 03:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Fuelwangon. VoA made a compromise in order to smooth things over and move forward. You destroyed his efforts.DaveRight 03:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Please withdraw this statement
If you wish to make personal comments, please do so on my talk page (not in public venue). Could you please remove this as I consider it a personal remark. --Comaze 11:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
No Comaze. Sorry, thoug, I don't delete facts. DaveRight 03:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I was referring to your personal remark directed at my username. See example, . This is a violation of wikipedia policy: see "no personal attacks" --Comaze 12:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)