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. --Comaze10:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. AlanBarnet10:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Comaze10:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. AlanBarnet10:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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? --Comaze10:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It uses verifiable and reliable sources, and is written using neutral language. How do you justify your opinion writing in your suggested section? AlanBarnet10:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Comaze12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 --Comaze02:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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). --Comaze04:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. AlanBarnet13:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Comaze14:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. 58.178.104.17403:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to IP lookup http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl, my IP 88.106.13.232 is Dutch and yours 58.178.144.203 is Australian. I have no idea what Comazes is but you and he have very similar editorializing promo and timing. WPSNOW is not a policy page. You have just confirmed that NLP is in fact a cult and I should not waste my time on you. AlanBarnet05:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. AlanBarnet14:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. 58.178.104.17403:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. 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. AlanBarnet01:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia -- but you already knew that. You've been around the block... pun intended. 58.178.144.20305:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. 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. AlanBarnet05:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement, "If Comaze was anything more than a promo pusher then Woohookitty would not call this article a lost cause." could be considered as a personal attack. There are other examples. For example, in the edit comments here, [1]. Please visit WP:NPA. Otherwise, let's start again. Thanks --Comaze12:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Comaze. Your edits and arguments are diametrically opposed to user Woohookittys urging to remove the promo booklet style of writing from this article. After I complied with user Woohookittys suggestions, you argued that my edits are cynical that the words used are pejorative and that they were not plausible. My edits were derived exactly and directly from NLP authors words. They may not be perfectly suited for the promo booklet style. Anybody with any ability to verify references will be able to revert the majority of your mostly promo booklet style edits. AlanBarnet07:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NLP
Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:
Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.
Having said that, on reflection, my choice of words in edit summaries hasn't always been very clever. Essentially, I was trying to say that if after making your edits, if you would check the integrity of the citations, that would be appreciated. Clearly, I should have been able to communicate this without using the word 'lazy'. Finally, your contribution to the article is appreciated. Addhoc16:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Addhoc but disagreements are likely on this article mostly because NLP is a cult that relies moslty on hoodwinking the reader. Satisfaction of all parties is unreasonable because Wikipedia and NLP users have opposing goals. My profession is mostly about checking sources within journalism research. Lazy is indeed a ridiculous slur in this case - though the laziest verifier would be able to notice the promo booklet pushing going on here. I will stick to NPOV on civility but there is no way that is going to help keep the facts in place or satisfy all parties. AlanBarnet07:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Characterise views of skeptics. Beyerstein, Lilienfeld and Eisner are harsh skeptics of alternative therapies. If you want to include these views you need to characterise their bias. --Comaze06:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are professors of psychology. That is their title and their bias. You cannot characterize them as harsh skeptics, and skeptics cannot characterize NLP proponents as psychobabble gurus. AlanBarnet06:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Describing them as harsh skeptics does not have academic tones necessary for wikipedia. Perhaps their concern for the growing research-practitioner gap is closer to the mark. --Comaze07:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Unvanquishable POV Warrior
He was at it for over a year with his continuous POV Warrioring, a relentless attempt to present not an readable overview of what NLP is or claims to be but instead an article that conformed to his 'NLP is pseudoscience/fraudulent/cultish' POV. He was banned and banned and banned sockpuppet, after sock puppet after sock puppet only to keep on coming. Is anyone surprised he's back as 'AlanBarnet' making the same POV changes to the same sections using the same quotes then offering the same denials? Let's keep on top of his POV Warrioring and keep pointing it out...
Clean Version: . Some reviews have characterized NLP as mass-marketed psychobabble
NEW POV AlanBarnet Revision: Reviews have characterized NLP as mass-marketed psychobabble
All reviews Alan/Headleydown? Why get rid of the 'some' if your not tryng to POV Warrior?
Clean Balnced Version: These "power therapies" have been criticised for lacking substantive clinical support.[1]. Devilly (2005) raised similar concerns for psychology and psychiatry.[2] Nonetheless NLP is used or suggested as an approach by some mental health bodies, including the National Phobics Society of Great Britain.[3]MIND,[4]USU: Student Health and Wellness Center,[5] the British Stammering Association, the Center for Development & Disability at the University of New Mexico Center for autism,[6] and Advocates of Child Abuse Survivors[7].
New POV AlanBarnet Version: hese "power therapies" have been criticised for lacking substantive clinical support.[1]. Devilly (2005) raised similar concerns for psychology and psychiatry.[2]
AlanBarnet Just wipes out the balanced nature of the article to enforce his POV view. Anything indicating and validity or acceptence to NLP MUST simply be deleted, or marginilized.
Clean Version: Research reviews suggested that the techniques and underlying theory may even be untestable.[8]. Moreover subsequent peer-reviewed psychological and experimental research in various disciplines has been sporadic.
New AlanBarnet Version: Uh Oh. AlanBarnet just deletes the inconvenient cited facts.
Why delete that AlanBarnet/Headlydown? Because the idea that NLP may be untestable conflicts with this point of view that NLP has been tested and has failed.
AlanBarnet/Headleydown... you're just going to get banned again for this blatant POV Warrioring and the article is going to get balanced out again. Why not pick up another hobby? The EFT article is looking pretty vulnerable?.
No need to reply or complain about good faith. I'm not touching this article again. Let him dig his own hole.74.38.250.506:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever you are, you have an obligation to be civil on Wikipedia according to the rules. Your comments are not really worth replying to in detail as they are so wrong. Your wild accusations do not help. See my reply to user 58.178.104.174 above. Deleting verified quotes from research conclusions and replacing them with commentary is not encyclopedic at all. So I will correct the problem once again. AlanBarnet04:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review sources
I want to avoid slipping into an adversarial position on the NLP article. I think the best way forward is to see if we can improve the article by improving the quality of sources for all significant views. I see no better way than to relying primarily on peer-reviewed sources. This removes alot of the controversial sources that have not passed peer-review. They also have an academic tone that is more appropriate for wikipedia. This will also make checking the facts and references simpler. --Comaze09:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comaze you slipped into deleting relevant views on a regular basis already. I looked up what can be included according to NPOV policy and relevant views it is. That is my focus. Whatever I verify as relevant and reliable can be included or restored. Straight reporting! AlanBarnet05:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When a page is protected only admin can edit the page. It can be used as a cool-off period when editing becomes heated. --Comaze12:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons for revert on NLP
I'm going to revert most of your edits today. The problem is that you've exaggerated the negative commmentary and mixed it with the research. In its current form it is a patchwork of unrelated sentences. It is also against consensus and exaggerates skeptical POV. Essentially, if you want to insert more criticism you will need to balance it with supportive literature as per WP:NPOV. You may not agree with it, but we all need to be able to write for the enemy on wikipedia. I will return the favour. By the way, several of your editing patterns are very similar to Camridge / JPLogan / HeadleyDown; can you explain this? --Comaze07:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can. You don't want me to edit this article because I keep reverting your editorializing or reverting whenever you delete relevant views. I have already identified you and user 58's edits as being just about the same and coming from the same country. You run a company that promotes NLP. It is clear from your own user page. Both you and user 58 have called me by the wrong name and suggested that I am dishonest. I suggest you watch your step. Whatever way you look at it you have broken NPOV policy so many times in the last few weeks that any effort to continue your antics will be reverted. I see no such activities on the other articles I am editing. Your biased editing is completely uncooperative. Please learn to collaborate with the verification efforts of the other editors. AlanBarnet07:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address the specific policy violations. Firstly, writing for the enemy is not an official policy but is part of the normal practice on wikipedia to encourage writing from a neutral point of view. This is something you have failed since your first edits here. You have inserted exaggerated skeptical statements. This is a violation of original research and neutral point of view. On wikipedia we write we give preference to mainstream science, but we need to present NLP as atleast plausible. Even if you think it is pseudo-science. Notice that I have written on both criticism and definitions of NLP. When there is significant disagreement in the literature then the dispute is to described objectively. Secondly, you continually add a patchwork of statements from various minority sources that comment on NLP. At the same time you have been confusing this with the research review. As you know we've had many sockpuppets on this page so forgive my questions about your similarity to banned editors (HeadleyDown etc.). Furthermore, the text you inserted has often been written by those banned editors. Much of the text written by those edits has been found to be grossly misleading. Pasting in their text only serves to undermine the confidence in your more constructive edits. In light of this Assuming good faith with your edits has been increasingly difficult. Nonetheless I will look for positive aspects of your contributions to see if we can comprimise. I would appreciate it if you could return the favour. In your previous comment, you say "watch your step" - is that a threat? Please see No personal attacks on wikipedia. Let's keep personal comments out of this. Comment on my specific content, not my person. --Comaze08:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not a threat. I do not threaten people. I am giving you sound advice in order that you don't get blocked. None of my edits are exaggerated and I have been writing for the enemy throughout. Unfortunately you keep deleting that information. It is all relevant including the information concerning the NLP authors views on rituals. I will restore the information that is the result of writing for the enemy. AlanBarnet08:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt with your personal comments. On wikipedia it is expected that we discuss the specific issues of reverts. By pointing to the relevant policy I hope you will learn to write within policy. Other editors, including me, will respond well if you are more specific objections. It is even better if you can quote from policy and provide links to the edits you disagree with. As it stands the reluctance to discuss the issues makes it very difficult to find a comprimise. Discussing the specifics issues with reverts is a necessary part of wikipedia revert policy. May I suggest for balance perhaps you could merge some of your negative views with some counter examples from supportive literature. Including unsupportive views as well would allow you to write for the enemy more effective to reduce the skeptical point of view --Comaze10:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I partially reverted your recent contributions as those quotes have already been incorporated into the article. It is good to see you're learning more about wikipedia policy (eg. WP:COI). There are better places to resolve conflicts than using AN/I. I don't think COI applies in full to me as explained on AN/I. Nonetheless, I will continue to edit the page. Can you be a little more specific with your objections to my edits. You seem to be escalating the situation without first engaging in 3rd party opinion, request for comment, or other dispute resolution systems available for content disputes. You'll find that most articles are edited by people interested in the topic. The COI is really there to stop organisation promoting themselves. Or researchers promoting their own research. None of this applies to me. --Comaze10:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote that "conspiring with Comaze and following his POV (he is also from Australia and runs a company that promotes NLP)"
These details you have posted about me are incorrect. Previously you have made remarks could be considered defamatory in nature. None of these allegations are appropriate in a public forum on wikipedia. If you suspect violations of WP:sock there are more appropriate venues to present your case. Disrupting the talk page with these allegations is unwikipedian. Please remove all these personal attacks with 7 days. see WP:NPA and WP:RPA. --Comaze14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AlanBarnet. This article needs people who are prepared to take the time and effort to research the subject. HarrisTweed, who looked like a really good source of scientific thinking and had access to research papers, appears to have been frightened off by all the conflict on this article. Please lets all start again and try and keep it calm and clean. I for one am interested in seeing what extra references for research you are proposing to produce (Williams, Drenth etc). I'm also interested to see if Comaze can come up with any research that supports NLP. Nobody else has found any yet! I also think we need to consider the pseudoscience question in the light of any verifiable claims NLP makes to be scientific. Lets not waste time and space on all this arguing and reverting. Yours in hope Fainites17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fainites. Yes its really regretable that helpful editors are bullied into leaving by incivil meatpuppets/sockpuppets. I myself have had ridiculous accusations chucked at me from the beginning despite my purely NPOV based edits, and despite my strong efforts to find the relevant information in quote form. In reply to your concern on the talkpage; your edits are not at all consistent with Comazes or the seeming meatpuppets or sockpuppets he seems to be using to support his POV pushing. You do seem to be conducting your efforts with a neutral article in mind. I havn't seen you attempt to snip away at the science views in the way that Comaze and the numbers have. I have compiled evidence to sort this out by the proper means in order to reduce the problem of editors being pushed away by groups who have no concern for civility, fact, or balance. Your continued help and concern is appreciated. AlanBarnet04:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to negotiate with you on several occasions. I directed you to relevant policy, explained the reasons why some of your edits were being reverts. I agree that solid referencing is the way to go. Also a separation of "skeptics views" from experimental psychology from research from other disciplines. Each discipline has its own stance on what is acceptable as evidence. I think you're also confusing the views of pseudoskeptics and an objective description of what is available from the psychological and experimental evidence. --Comaze09:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AlanBarnet. You can e-mail me your sources now. Thanks. Fainites.
Hi, Alan. I saw your note on the journalism talk page. I might be interested in collaborating. These days I mainly work at wiki focused on journalism, and the info could be useful at both places. It's easiest to contact me at my Journawiki talk page. Maurreen23:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Comaze12:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comaze. None of my comments has constituted a personal attack. Not one. You seem to me to be complaining about me pointing out your known conflict of interest on the NLP article. You have a known conflict of interest. Please stop editing articles related to NLP. AlanBarnet05:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get to the specifics. It seems that you think the article is becoming too promotional. Guy has asked for it to be more descriptive. I agree with this. You have relied on some old statements and quotes that were misinterpreted by HeadleyDown. A number of editors have been working to check the facts and reference to restore this. I'd rather we concentrate on desribing the different points of view of reputable/reliable sources. There are going to aspects that we can agree to disagree. There are going to be aspects where we can find some agreement. I cannot argue against the inclusion of verifiable / reputable view from reliable (peer reviewed) sources. In fact this should be encouraged. There are a number of main points of views that are emerging from the article and the criticism now appear more reasonable. Trust in the wikipedia collaborative process and we'll be ok :) --Comaze05:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have just against posted a link to personal details. Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Comaze05:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guy has expressed the wish that you stop editing NLP related articles because of your known conflict of interest. I agree with Guy entirely. The longer you stay editing NLP related articles the longer Wikipedia seems to suffer as a result. I cannot and should not have to collaborate with NLP provider or promoter companies. Your strategy now seems to be to present the facts but not clearly and not with due weight. Your presence as an NLP provider on the NLP article is unacceptable. I have notified Guy and asked if I am doing anything out of line. As an NLP provider company I cannot trust your statements. I will take advice from Guy on this matter. AlanBarnet05:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "NLP provider" company here. I'm happy to provide proof to a third party. Let's focus on sorting the content issues. How do you propose to objectively determine due weight? --Comaze05:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.
You CANNOT argue your right to post someone's personal details. You seem so obsessed with arguing that you are incapable of recognising a gross misdeed. Posting personal details is blatant harassment. It would be nice for you to apologise to Comaze including removing the personal details you posted, but I'm not sure if that's enough as the damage is already done. Many editors will judge your character on your ability to be sensitive to real world damages you may be creating. I'm quite profoundly surprised you take yourself so important here at wikipedia that you feel you have a right to maliciously comprimise another persons personal details. 211.26.210.9021:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User 211. There was no way of knowing user Comaze's personal information until he admitted to it whereupon I stopped posting the information. There was no harrassment at all. Plus - the information is freely available on Comaze's userpage anyway. Comaze has been acting in a highly suspicious way and continues to work on NLP articles despite admin's request to stop doing so. Comaze continues to obscure relevant facts and present incomplete facts as is in evidence from yesterdays edits. He even removed his personal details from his userpage yesterday and said he would leave Wikipedia when nobody is asking him to leave. What is so stressful about not being able to edit NLP related articles? Then he returns (with a passion he states) and starts editing again. I'm reporting Comaze's odd behaviour and COI and you seem to be asking me to stop doing so. AlanBarnet04:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AlanBarnet. I've refactored your personal comments on Comaze to his talk page to avoid letting the discussion on the article talk page get polluted with trolling and argument. I intend to continue to refactor any personal comments you make on the article talk page. Please read wikipedia policy carefully so you will note that talk pages are for discussing articles, not editors. Also note that WP:AN/I is for notifying admins of users that need to be banned for serious offenses (such as posting another users personal information; as you did). WP:AN/I is not for arguing the contribution merits of edits and editors. Take care. 58.178.234.12805:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Considering your close association with an editor who persistently ignores the COI policy - you have zero credibility concerning any of those subject you mention above. So far the only replies of admin have supported my notifications and assessments. I am perfectly within my rights to help the article by warning editors about their COI. I will use ANI for notifying admin of your and Comaze's unconstructive activities until admin notify me otherwise. AlanBarnet06:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You're just going to ignore policy because I pointed it out to you? That seems a trifle spiteful. WP:AN/I is perfectly clear:
This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If you came here to complain about the actions of a user or administrator, or if your problem is a content issue and does not need the attention of people with administrator access, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration.
202 or 58 whoever you are! I took a good long look at the Posting personal details information and it shows very clearly that my posting of Comaze's details is not harassment at all because of the clearly stated clause "unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself.". Comaze has provided that information himself and you and he (if you are not indeed the same person) have actively tried to cover up that information on the ANI noticeboard. Similar to your distortion - minimization - cover up - of key science views on the NLP article you've definitely been <..WP:RPA..>. Furthermore if you look further down on what constitutes harassment - you've clearly been harassing me on this talkpage. Do it again and you get reported! AlanBarnet06:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. You start two WP:AN/I notices about me and then you contest my decision to discuss it on your talk page? Go ahead, file a complaint about me. I note that ALL 1000+ admins on Wikipedia ignored your last timewasting complaint on WP:AN/I. What do you think will happen when you post a third timewaster notice? 203.134.139.3211:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the comaze issue. Actually, Comaze asked you specifically not to post his personal information, including his real name and his occupation. As I saw, you then went ahead anyway and posted his real name against his wishes and you also speculated about his occupation. It is this speculation which is the basis for your claimed conflict of interest. 203.134.139.3211:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still posting users personal details after several warnings
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment". Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comaze (talk • contribs) 13:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comaze. Your posting of unwarranted warnings can be seen as harassment according to the harassment article link posted above. Please stop. I have only reiterated the view of admin. Clearly admin Guy is not personally attacking you and neither am I. AlanBarnet07:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AlanBarnet, Let's try and work out some of our disputes. Perhaps we could get request for comment. Is the opening (third paragraph) the pressing issue for you? If so, would you like to a third opinion on that? --Comaze13:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comaze - further to the above - you have no right to be editing NLP articles. Working out this problem means you leaving NLP and related articles alone completely. I don't need a second or third opinion on any of this information. You heard it from admin and you heard it from me and its writ clear on the related article on COI. (..text removed under WP:RPA..) You have a very obvious COI. Stop editing NLP related articles. Your bias is clear and extreme - and you are causing conflict by persistently editing on NLP and related articles. AlanBarnet06:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AlanBarnet. The WP:COI you claim is incorrect because Comaze was already one of the subjects of a 4 month long arbitration case in which 7 arbitrators determined he was entitled to edit the article. That is about the most binding decision you can ever get on wikipedia, and carries a couple of megatonnes more weight than any single admins opinion. Your only sanctioned recourse is to follow the dispute resolution process. It's a good process and it might be just the thing we all need to get working together again. The article can only benefit from third opinions and requests for comment. Comaze has held out an olive branch a few times now. Would it really kill you to give him the benefit of the doubt? 203.134.139.3211:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about Comaze's prior conflicts but you as an anon IP are not really to be taken seriously - and of course the situation now is that there are no sockpuppets at all on the NLP article. Only as Guy said to you - there is a pressing problem of those with a vested interest obscuring the key issues on the article. You seem to be one of those obscuring key views against NPOV as I will explain in more detail on the NLP article. As far as admin goes - unless you are a grade A hacker - you have no idea about all my communications with administrators. As it is we seem to be on very good terms. AlanBarnet07:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AlanBarnet. Thanks for the message. The problem I have with Guy from admin is that he is more offhandedly POV than anyone involved in editing. Saying NLP is a cultic system and saying it is a 'fact' that it is a cult is HeadleyDown stuff and not what you expect from admin. How does Guy know? If he knows so much, perhaps he can provide some valid references. Being in admin doesn't make him god. I've been working my way through all the old citations for 'cult', and none of them were remotely accurate as you know from the talk pages, apart from the russian priest. Somebody else has now looked up the last two and it seems that even Margaret Singer does not simply say NLP is a cult, which suprises me, but I have this book on order and will check when it arrives. As for Comaze, it has always been obvious that he believes in NLP but he hasn't concealed his interest. But nobody is objective. He does not, in my experience, delete validated and accurately quoted sources from the article. It's just that absolutely nobody agrees with you about the intro. I still think my attempt ie 'after three decades remains scientifically unvalidated' was pretty punchy. If they're so marvellous, what have they been doing for three decades? Sorry to get a bit cross on the talk page. I don't have a copy of Eisner and it's frustrating when someone else does but won't give you a quote.Fainites09:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fainites. Yes I don't take any statement at face value either. I did look into Guys statements tho - and they do reflect exactly whats mentioned in the literature of scientists and the more reliable authors. He said cult - but then qualified it by stating nuances about cultic systems. So the view is incredibly well informed and balanced on examination of the literature. I can only imagine he has come across so many well sourced statements and has seen all the similar cultic articles that he knows pretty much what he's talking about. As I said though theres no need to take them at face value. The facts should speak for themselves as it says more or less in NPOV policies.
The lead section really has had its main views and criticisms marginalized for too long by those seemingly determined to promote by obscuring those key views. The main concern of those researchers is the unwarranted promotion of NLP as some kind of science - and the adoption by unsuspecting govt departments and overcommercialized psych societies. The issues are numerous and the key views include potential harm - misleading information about the brain and human functioning - fraudulent claims - pseudoscience in general (as Devilly mentioned). According to NPOV policy it should all be there. I've invited others to help improve that section. I don't wish to rule the roost in this matter. Its best to let NPOV go to work. AlanBarnet12:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heres that quote in full from Eisner 2000p158 "Both Sharpley and Elich et al. conclude that NLP is akin to a cult and may be nothing more than a psychological fad"
I really can't agree with you AlanBarnet. Guy is not a source. None of the sources cited as stating NLP is a cult have borne up to close examination. Repeatedly trying to state it is a 'fact' than NLP is a cult without verification doesn't make it true. Saying you can only 'imagine that he has come across so many well sourced statements' that mysteriously nobody else has come across is just silly.As for your belated attempt to provide a source for your edit that Sharpley and Elich said it was a cult, you put that quote above in on 30.12.06. The request was made on 24.12.06 and the quote was found by me later on 24.12.06, as you very well know as it's on the talk page so you're not fooling anybody.Fainites09:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fainites. I don't think anyone is quoting Guy as a source and the Eisner line should be allowed to speak for itself - NPOV. Akin to a cult is fine - though there are other views (psychocult) from reliable sources also. I've never tried to fool anyone. Looking at WP policies it seems that assuming good faith should be the default here. Here is the quote in full: At present the sophisticated studies that have been done suggest there is little or no scientific basis to the notion that a person's eyes move in a certain direction depending on her preferred sensory mode. It appears that this line of research as well as all others dropped off the radar map after Sharpley's second review." Both Sharpley and Elich et al. conclude that NLP is akin to a cult and may be nothing more than a psychological fad. I can supply any amount of Eisner's view. AlanBarnet03:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is AlanBarnet, that you put in a statement saying Sharpley, Elich and Eisner said NLP was a cult and failed to provide any quotes or references to back it up despite repeated requests. Others provided the only Eisner quote which is Eisner quoting Sharpley quoting Elich. You clearly have Eisner therefore unless you are a fool you must have known that the quote from Eisner did not support your edit. I have tried assuming good faith and negotiating with you but you are just entertaining your self at everybody elses expense. Goodbye.Fainites17:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm sorry you feel that way - but I've been working strictly with NPOV and collaborative discussion all along. As with Guy - I have been saying that "NLP as some kind of cult" is an issue that is clearly mentioned by multiple sources. So trying to remove references just because it doesn't state "NLP is a cult" really is a poor excuse for editing. The default of NLP proponents - it seems - is to try to find ways to be as dismissive as possible of any reliable source that opposes the promotional view. NPOV is non-negotiable and says that all relevant views must be included. Of course all views should be well presented as clearly as each proponent of each view would put it. But that doesn't mean that a proponent of one view should present as vaguely as possible while persistently striving to delete - minimize - or obscure the key issues of the opposing view. I believe I am being very reasonable about this and it should really be easy enough to work this out on your own by referring to NPOV policy. I think you'll discover over time that I'm not as biased as you currently make out. AlanBarnet07:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AlanBarnet. I don't believe a word of you saying you have a private admin friend who emails you. That is absurd, immature, and irrelevent. Which brings me to my next point. There is enough character evidence and diffs now to satisfactorily conclude you are a sockpuppet of HeadleyDown. I will be reverting most of your future edits and continuing to refactor personal attacks, and I expect this account will be blocked in the near future. You have had ample opportunity to engage in productive discussion with the editors of the article but have repeatedly opted to create chaos in the discussion page instead. I will not be as tolerant of your next sockpuppet. Take care. 58.178.156.24911:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite amazed that this user has not been blocked yet. I have read enough of the whole HeadlyDown mess by now to see that this is the same method of operation. Jbhood00:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User 58.178.156.249 - I've already informed admin of your seemingly harassing behaviour. If you revert my edits in order to marginalize criticism or obscure key views then more likely as not - you'll end up getting blocked or warned in some way. I encourage you towards constructive discourse. I really don't see the point in any kind of meatpuppetry - and I have even explicitly discouraged it on the talkpage. That includes any kind of sockpuppeting or use of meatpuppets. AlanBarnet12:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Headley. Just letting you know that at present:
You have continued your sarcastic disinformation and taunts ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8]) on that page
There is currently six open threads on the nlp talk page and you have co-opted 4 of them to discuss your cabal theories and insulting the direction the other editors are taking with the article.
The page history is full of many more threads of unproductive discussion about you and the issues you raise about the other editors.
Because of all these factors I will now be removing most of your future posts on the NLP talk page and labelling them as the carefully crafted trolling that they are. The other editors have unanimously agreed to not respond to anything you write and they have made it clear why; being exasperated with your false niceties, manipulation, and lies. The time to negotiate with the other editors on the NLP article has been and gone. If you believe this is unfair you have various channels to pursue; which will ultimately result in you being banned. Take care. 58.178.142.3705:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 58.178.142.37. You seem to me to have absolutely no authority at all. And I noticed you omitted Guy's actual diff. I believe both he and myself are being helpful - constructive and reasonable. You appear to be neither. AlanBarnet 06:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) The editors you present above all seem to either have a known COI or have shown a reluctance to present each view clearly and concisely. AlanBarnet08:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proper use of "however"
You've been removing "however" from many pages. The comments after your changes to the linguistics article might help you: [9]. When appropriate, careful attention should be given to ensure the original meaning is kept. --Comaze10:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Comaze. I've been applying WP words to avoid recommendations to many pages in order to make writing more neutral [10]. I also seek collaboration in this effort. The intention here is to make articles more encyclopedic. Any help in this area will be well appreciated. AlanBarnet09:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You write quite well, but there are some signs that english may not be your first language? What is your level of english proficiency? --Comaze11:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I get a little incoherent on nightshift and I grew up in Newcastle. Not exactly English. But what's this got to do with writing on Wikipedia? AlanBarnet03:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Comaze. I believe long term constructive editing will be possible when editors accept each other as having different viewpoints. The article will most likely need scrutiny from admin over a longer time scale so I will continue to write reports. With constructive collaboration those reports can become more positive. AlanBarnet00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Woohookitty. I'll work either through making each paragraph more concise - then adding concise overview paragraphs to each section, or the other way around. Whichever one is more conducive to collaborative editing according to the other editors. AlanBarnet10:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi user 58.178.111.142. I just made a change to the ANI message [11]. I don't think it matters what we call the section. The issue is the way the criticisms are now presented. They seem to be presented as a debate rather than a straight report of critical views. Both Cleanuptaskforce and NPOV policy require them to be presented in a more summarized form. Below I have presented one such suggestion. Any other suggestions on how to go about this summarizing are welcome. AlanBarnet00:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Comaze. You have been identified by myself and at least one admin (Guy mentioned above) as having a known COI. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as long as you don't try to dominate the discussion in a coordinated manner with other dominating proponents. Please leave my posts alone. I am Alan Barnet and I am not sockpuppeting. I am neither removing pro NLP argument nor removing any of your discussion posts. Please at least try to maintain a situation where editors can get along. Thank you. AlanBarnet07:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started by assuming good faith with you. But you have burned the bridges with all editors on the article. I will simply ignore any further posts. --Comaze07:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comaze. You have just notified me of your intention to ignore me. If you follow up on the intention then you are being uncivil [12]. I will have to notify ANI of your message. Please show that you can get along with those who have a different worldview from your own. AlanBarnet08:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely going to ignore you completely. You have demonstrated a complete disregard for the other editors. You have provided misleading information, misinterpreted sources, and faked sources. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I have absolutely no intention of dealing with you at all. If you want to contact me, you'll need to do so through a third party or mediation. --Comaze 08:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC) I've organised the NLP talk page into questions that can be answered. Feel free to modify the questions in your section. This will make it easier working with others, for mediation and third party comment. --Comaze08:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giving you the benefit of the doubt again
Hello Comaze. You have been identified by myself and at least one admin (Guy mentioned above [13]) as having a known conflict of interest. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as long as you don't try to dominate the discussion in a coordinated manner with other dominating proponents. You said you intended to ignore me on the basis of your statements: "you have a complete disregard for the other editors. You have provided misleading information, misinterpreted sources, and faked sources" Here are my edits of yesterday and I don't see any problem with them [14]. They are all correct and according to the sources and I've been working to remove the kind of undue debate that Cleanuptaskforce has mentioned. I am neither removing pro NLP argument nor removing any of your discussion posts. Please at least try to maintain a situation where editors can get along. According to your edits you are not actually ignoring me at least yesterday. I am happy to apply for mediation though. AlanBarnet07:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Comaze. I've updated the ANI concerning your edits on the NLP article [15]. Despite your long term promotional acitivities on the NLP article and your failure to assume good faith - I am still willing to put that aside and work long term to make sure the article has all relevant views shown and "presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability." AlanBarnet03:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Comaze. There is an ongoing concern about incivility and domination of the NLP talkpage and article: [16]. You seem to be persisting in your marginalizing of discussion on the NLP talkpage [17]. Your actions are incivil and disruptive and I ask you again to please stop disrupting discussion in this way. Despite your long term promotional acitivities on the NLP article and your failure to assume good faith though - I am still willing to put that aside and work long term to make sure the article has all relevant views shown and "presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability." Please cooperate. AlanBarnet05:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Comaze. You are ignoring me. I am not trolling or sockpuppeting and there is no evidence at all of any of those activities. - Therefore your ignoring me is classed as incivility and is distinctly disharmonious.
I assume you wish to represent NLP as fairly as you can though I believe you are going about things against Wikipedia guidelines. I am also committed to fairness. If you start working with editors such as myself who have a different worldview then I believe your rather dire situation may improve. Your known COI does not necessarily mean you will definitely be banned from editing NLP related articles or edits - It all depends upon your willingness to work in cooperation with those of other views. I believe it would be best for you if you were not drawn into the long term incivility/disruption habit that user 58/203 is so deeply into now. I would like something positive to report on the next ANI notification. Your cooperation is necessary. AlanBarnet05:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appologise for being short. Please do not send me any more messages. If you wish to contact me, you can do it through the third party comment or mediation. --Comaze11:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Comaze. Altering my posts is not the only uncivil aspect of your recent actions. Ignoring or dismissing my conclusions is also uncivil. Also its only a small part of the very much more pressing problems of COI and group domination that have held the article hostage for the past months. There's no requirement for me to go through mediation in order to encourage you to be civil or to get on and you have already made it clear that you don't wish mediation - and that precludes the possibility of it happening. There is also no need at all for a third party comment though I am happy to use that method. But I believe the wisest long term approach now and in future is to commit to getting along with editors who have a different view from your own. I have already committed to that approach both here, on the article, and on ANI notices. In the spirit of Wikipedia I will give you more time to act appropriately and to make an effort to get along. AlanBarnet07:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could negotiate with a mentor or mediator, I simply don't know. Good luck with your endeavors. I have other things to work on. --Comaze11:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your note
Hi Alan, sorry not to get back to you earlier. I don't know of any software that might detect words to avoid, but I wonder whether any of the vandalism-detecting stuff could be tweaked to do it. I'll take a look at the village pump response you got. Cheers, SlimVirgin(talk)08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks SlimVirgin. I did wonder about that myself. Also - I noticed a pretty cool Automated Peer Review output of the NLP article I'm working on [18]. I'll make enquiries about possible applications with that also. AlanBarnet08:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply
It won't work. You've displayed your true colours and burned your boats. As for admin, they haven't stopped the rest of us moving your wikilawyering to another page or ignoring it altogether. As for Woohookitty's encouragement, you were taking credit for other peoples work which Woohookitty would not be expected to realise unless he waded through hundreds of diffs. The other editors all know it though. As for me, you know very well I am a sceptic, and, for what it's worth, have little doubt personally that NLP is a pseudoscience. But you don't care do you? It's all just obsessive games to you isn't it?. Get a life! Anyway, I've said what I think often enough. I don't wish to have any more communication with you. Goodbye.Fainites 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Fainites. It is working. I am openly showing my true colours on ANI notices and administrators such as SlimVirgin [19] and Woohookitty [20] indicate that my efforts to solve problems on Wikipedia have been constructive. I've been asking for long term scrutiny. I am far from boat burning. I've been calmly asking for the group to get along. The ANI notices that I have made are constructive because they have added the scrutiny of administrators on an article where a group with known COI issues seems to be dominating. The group seems to me to be using the same uncivil tactics and language as yourself and may be considered meatpuppets in the event of any voting (counted as one).
Have a go at editing on other articles to help you compare situations. This NLP article seems to be a special case. The argumentative debate tone and lack of summarized criticism shows that there are some serious problems to sort out here long term. Presently the dominating group is looking more troublesome in Wikipedia terms than ever. Therefore I will be collecting specific instances of incivility and unconstructive behaviour and I request again for you to be civil.
Your (and my own) own opinion of NLP is irrelevant to editing. Its your actions that count. Its your actions that can be collected in diffs as evidence. If you work towards presenting the article in summarized form without any information suppression and without any more incivil dissmissive marginalization of constructive discussion then perhaps I will have something positive to report in the next ANI notice. AlanBarnet04:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NLP on AN/I
There's a lot of alphabet soup on the AN/I already. Could you pelase retitle that from NLP... to Neuro-Linguistic Programming? (Only because my first thought was about some of the WP:BLP stuffs, and thinking NLP was part of the WP:BIO being negotiated for a list of 'Not for Living Persons' (Like the recent discussions about addresses and ages of crime victims and so on...) and since NLP might mean other things to other editors? I've yet to read it all the way through, but you used NLP over and over, never making it clear without a rollover and link-reading. Thank you.ThuranX03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
