User:Enemesis/sandbox
- I will not be one to make waves anymore and I have become more peaceful in recent months with this article. I realise that no-one was willing to catch onto what a new editor would say who did enter so rigorously into the challenge. You did ask for evidence for a conflict of interest I hope this can help ----->... Dave_Snowden A brief description of cynefin and change working within a business frame. David Snowdens business Cognitive Edge. The information presented in these articles show that both NLP and Cynefin are different models or systems of thinking. The wikipedia article shows that Dave Snowden is the creator of the cynefin model and it is what he is famous for. The Cynefin article presents a business model that Cynefin is applied to or ecology within the business place; Ecology also being a pre-requisite for any change or enhancement in ones professional or private life in NLP (i.e. communication both verbal and non verbal). The cognitive edge article shows that David Snowden also owns a business that suggests that it uses a psychological edge over other practices for its customers is also is marketed in much the same way to NLP in business. It further shows that he has a business that practices teaching cynefin principals. This presents itself as it may be a conflict of interest to the article concerned for monetary purposes (i.e. shifting opinions so that people will buy product b rather than product a as outlined on wikipedia). Enemesis (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Snowded's link to David Snowden outing cleared
snowded's page the top right has a link to his business link to Cognitive edge
- Just to help you out here, the fact I make no effort to hide who I am, or the link to my web site was generally held to be evidence of openness when the issue was raised at COI. I suggest you go to the COI notice board archives and check those attempts. You might also like to read this where one of your predecessors (who I now know in real life and has become a friend by the way) took the same line as you. ----Snowded TALK 11:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
[sources]
Looking over the references for the article there are a majority that opine to NLP's medicinal qualities by professionals in psychotherapy. The vague distortion that NLP is not used successfully for other applications such as life goals, success coaching, business communications sports psychology training etc... may be inherently in NPOV from those sources to include . I would suggest that the references for medicine and well being have their place in the article and should be limited to the psychotherapists speciality of field. They do not have a speciality in business, sports psychology, life coaching and other applications I think we may find other sources to cover these areas. that is successful businesses professionals, athletes, sports psychologists as sources that represent their respective fields.
This of course would mean that the article would need a format change to incorporate the total ideas, attitudes of the unsuccesful or successful NLP practices.
Hello, I have a complaint about a COI involving Snowded on the Neuro Linguistics programming page.. I have contacted Snowded a few times about this matter and suggested that he change the formatting of the article as it is POV and denegrates the subject matter to which he has refused and used wikipedia beauraucracy to defend his point of view. I have also outlined good examples of NPOV articles as recomended by wikipedia. I have read wikipedia policy about outing however if the editor is self referred on wikipedia I can use sources provided by him as long as links are provided on wikipedia WP|Outing.
The editor owns a business with a very similar set up to Neuro Linguistics Programing courses. Nlp Having Practitioner/Master Practitioner courses compared to a similar Practitioner/Advanced practitioner courses for the editors place of business which is referred to from snowded wikipage(top right corner "I have a website here". The similarities in business are (although NLP is not exclusive to this it is a common application) to train organisations to work both more efficiently and ecologicaly by using differing paradigms or systems of thought and action.
Many editors have objected to the article because of the representation of the subject. It denegrates and undermines the subject matter which seems to be for one or both of financial gain and personal preference in practice of the paradigms or the belief systems at hand that the editor teaches in his courses. I would like to ask that the editor be removed from the article he has made some great contributions to other articles however this article may not be suitable for him to work on considering the editors competing business and personal differing points of view on training organisations and systems of belief. I do believe the editing to be compromised. Enemesis (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)