User talk:Action potential/ Archive3

NLP

Thanks -- I'll steer clear of cleaning up "fundamentals" and "principles" a bit (except for minor copyenhancing to the main article), and let you and Greg get on with it then. FT2 (Talk) 11:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hiya,

Quick update. I'm working on a reconstruct of the main Neuro-linguistic programming article, and I think it will put NLP onto a regular Wikipedia basis (explanation, balanced coverage, citation). Thing is, it's not a small job. I don't want to get there only to be flamed at for rewriting it without some form of consensus.

What I'd like to do instead is open up the reconstruct article as I work on it this coming week, for comments and criticisms, and to get feedback as it develops, or answer questions on the layout or get improvements and so on. Does thsi sound OK to you? If so please leave a message and let me know, and I'll move the draft reconstruction to a sensible place chunk by chunk as it's ready for review and consensus.

Let me know if this seems okay to you? If not let me know and we can discuss what would work instead. My main concern is to get a balanced prototype written relatively quickly that is in line with basic Wikipedia standards and covers the field appropriately.

Thanks for your help, look forward to hearing back that it's okay! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review: web operating system

Dear Comaze, I'm looking to some of the members of the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club for a review of an article that's having a wild ride into existance. If you can have a look at Web operating system it points to others like WebOS and Internet Operating Systems that some think it should be merged into. Many thanks for your time. - JohnPritchard 19:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

NLP

Honestly, I have no interest in involving myself with the NLP article. Ship sailed long ago. Sorry. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Robbins

If there's nothing with this:

Since the divorce of Tony Robbins, despite his commercial promotion of "Perfect Marriage" counseling, many of his followers became disenchanted .

could you please put it back in somewhere? I found it informative (assuming the first part is true). 58.179.183.152 02:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was just in the wrong place. --Comaze 02:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

Hey Comaze,

Could you be mindful of your use of commas please. Some common instances from your writing to focus on are your overuse of commas and mistakenly ending sentences with commas. There's some pretty good grammar sites out there to do a quick brush up on your c/e skills. Best intentions. :) 211.27.111.188 23:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

tagging article as "unbalanced"

Hi there, I've noticed that you've tagged Ideomotor effect as being unbalanced. I understand that when you do this you are supposed to leave details on the article's talk page so that your concerns can be attended to. Could you do that please? Zuytdorp Survivor 05:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --Comaze 06:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Research views on NLP

Hello Comaze. I restored the detailed information on the research review section. I did so in order for all to properly verify what is there. I know it is covered in a vaguer way on other sections but verification and verifiability really is quite important. If you could give us all a chance to verify then things could go a bit smoother I feel. Thanks Harristweed 08:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. I've finally worked out how to talk to another editor. Thanks for the comment about my Grammar edits. I was hoping nobody would be insulted. Fainites 22:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets, coming of age

Hi Comaze. I count 2 or 3 sockpuppets on the NLP article now. Is it a good idea to start a subpage somewhere of dubious behaviour? I noticed your previous AN/I and thought I could help collect info. Particularly lately I noticed, and you may remember how DaveRight would always come in off topic and compliment HeadleyDown with statements such as "your edits are very NPOV Headley, and well written as usual." and crap like that -- anyway, seems to be happening again. 210.50.221.248 13:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is improving in some respects. But there has been some patterns very similar to Headley/DaveRight/Camridge. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to collect evidence to prove sockpuppet use. I have no doubt they are atleast lurking somewhere on wikipedia. Perhaps we could collect some evidence and then do another checkuser. --Comaze 13:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

All good. 210.50.221.248 15:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

article on "power therapies"

No, I don't think I was quick on the draw on that one. Granted, there are lots of ghits for this, but the article is horribly written, doesn't mention that almost all of the credible psychological community thinks its a bunch of bunk!! As it stands, it's useless - that's why I prodded it instead of speedied it - it's got 5 days to grow and become a real article. SkierRMH 08:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

NLP Modeling Experience

Hey Comaze long time...

I been reading the nlp modeling page. Tell me, do you do nlp modeling projects?--jVirus 12:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In your training were you also required to do the explication part as in after modeling create the explicit pattern easily learnable to others? --jVirus 14:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

NLP & Power Therapies

Hi Comaze, I'm playing Mr Mum at the moment with a 12 week old and that's taking more effort than running a RCT! I'd be happy to help out but it may take me a little while. As you can probably see, I've got my hands pretty full with the EMDR page too (although I'm wondering what the point is - those with a vested interest will always put more effort and organise themselves to declare an edit war). Even when you actually give them the papers (as opposed to just citing them) they won't read them. Back soon, best Grant 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Asssessment of James McClelland

No problem with that change. I'm bound to make a few bad assessments along the way! Thanks for the words of encouragement too. —Cswrye 08:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Help!

sorry to be such a wimp Comaze but I've followed all the instructions on setting up a reference for O'Connor and Seymour in the section on science and it still comes up in the list of references as a template. What am I doing wrong? Fainites 09:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Comaze! Fainites 10:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Refactored personal attacks here

Hi Comaze. I'm refactoring AlanBarnets personal comments here to your talk page to avoid letting the discussion on the article talk page get polluted with trolling. Take care. 58.178.234.128 05:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze - I must remind you yet again of your known COI as has been confirmed by user Guy [1], who has also fairly identified NLP as a cult (with reasonable reference to the literature). Nobody is asking you to leave Wikipedia altogether - but if you really care about this encyclopedia - you should edit only on articles where you have no conflict of interest. There are plenty of other articles to choose from. Your very presence here seems to be causing conflict. AlanBarnet 05:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Comaze. I didn't mean to be rude. It's just that to non NLPers you need simple oneline expalnations of what a model actually is before plunging into the types/significance/use etc. Thanks for the interest. I'm sure it will need someone with your knoewledge of NLP to correct it. Fainites 12:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't think I've actually removed anything. Just shifted it all about. What do you think about where the heuristic study should go?Fainites 13:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, the research reviews section is all reviews. There isn't a section for the actual studies that they reviewed! This study would look a bit lonely all by itself in a 'studies' section. How do you think it looks in MH? I can't see why a PHD dissertation isn't a sound source. Presumably if it was crap the person wouldn't get their PHD. Some scientists produce their best work ever for their PHD and rest on their laurels thereafter.Fainites 13:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comaze, how about two subheadings, one 'concepts, the other 'methods' and then put all the principles, eg maps, prs, submodalities etc in the first and all the techniques, eg goal setting, anchoring etc in the second. Ecology is probably a method rather than a concept. Fainites 12:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Comaze. IMHO... I think it's a bad idea to continually archive Headleydown's posts on the talk page. Yes he is permanently banned. Yes he's a troll, despite his 'polite' and 'reasonable' facade. But the sooner he realizes that his current sock is completely ineffectual, the sooner we're going to be trying to identify a new sock who we are</a> responding to and wasting time with. Let him spout and play his little games with a face we already recognize. Doc Pato 19:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Good point on GEB

thanks! :) --JianLi 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Announcement

This new announcement refers to you. Take care. 58.179.166.57 01:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've give a short response. Mainly to JzG who seems to think there is a pro-NLP camp which is far from the truth. As far as I know 58.* and Fainites have no prior knowledge or interest in NLP, and have a preference for reliable/reputable evidence. --Comaze 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Comaze. Thanks for all your hard work and tolerance on NLP during the last few months. I really appreciate your work and sincerely hope you stay to help work out the article. I'd like you to let the talk page structure stay in it's evolving form. I think the context of conversations is fragile.

I can see the todo list style structure you have come up with may be useful as a subpage if you let users opt into it themselves. Best wishes. 203.212.136.193 09:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My intent there was to create a structure so that it could stay on-topic. Refactoring could really help keep the talk page on track. I'll trust you experience on this one. --Comaze 11:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, yet the decisions about refactoring are more difficult than they first appear. I think it's best to leave the original conversations in place and start a separate todolist -- as you have. Thanks. 203.212.136.193 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)