User talk:Lam Kin Keung

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Lam Kin Keung, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! +Angr 14:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you An. Regards LK.Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

banned?[edit]

Hi, have you previous been banned from editing wikipedia? You writing style is similar to a banned user. Please explain. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No I never have been banned from Wikipedia. I got banned from a nightclub before but I was in my teenager years (under age).

My writing style is developed from a lot of dictionary use and grammar checks. If it is similar to other people then I guess they use the dictionary and grammar checker too.

Who are you? Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll assume good faith but will keep an eye on your edits. Just ensure that you abide by the arbcom rules for this article. The arbcom ruling requires that we first discuss any changes on the talk page first and that we ascribe any views to reputable/reliable sources. Also ensure that you abide closely by the NPOV policies. WP:FRINGE is also relevant. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Please provide a link to that arbcom ruling --Snowded TALK 15:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It is linked at the top of the article talk page. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you prove to a trustworthy third party that you have a PhD in cognitive linguistics as you have implied? What was your thesis topic? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You are not allowed to ask questions that would lead to identification. Far too much AGF failure here --Snowded TALK 04:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
If someone says they are an expert in the field of cognitive linguistics, I am entitled to ask for confirmation. I don't need to know specifics. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

views other than skeptics?[edit]

Lam Kin Keung, I'm trying to include in the article quotes from one of the most respected psychoanalysts in the country who is on the faculty of Columbia University. You have repeatedly deleted his quote without explanation. Please learn about brain plasticity from the sources that have been provided to you so that you understand why this is very important information to include in the article at forefront of modern research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talkcontribs) 15:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Encyclotadd. Wikipedia is not improved by forcing edits. Please adhere to WP:BRD. I will move your edits to the discussion page, where we can discuss the merits or demerits of them. I have already placed some comments there regarding your prior edits. Please discuss [1]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Lam Kin Keung, You deleted a heavily referenced paragraph that included a quote by one of the leading psychoanalysts in the country from Columbia University without explanation. You requested for further dialogue in the changelog. I'm not sure what additional information you require than the original texts themselves? But that is one of the most interesting and now supported arguments in NLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talkcontribs) 01:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see my reply belowLam Kin Keung (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you revise your draft to take into account significant other points of view. I don't want you to fall into the trap that some proponents do (i.e. confirmation bias). We have to keep impartial here. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The current draft is fine. It has good multiple sources coming from the scientific skepticism view. More can be added on to it in the article when more sources support those views. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It is not clear what you are saying here. What are the counter-arguments? You also need to rewrite the draft using an impartial tone. Have you found a source which critiques your "scientific skepticism" POV? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Read: NPOV FAQ Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that all your edits to other pages are minor and uncontroversial except for your edits to the article about NLP. You reverted me just then and said that it needed to be discussed. The reasons for my changes are quite clear if you read the edit comments and the changes I made. You are letting your own biases get in the way here. See if you can "write for the enemy" and at least attempt to write from a NPOV. You need to start working with the other editors even if you don't like them. At the moment you just seem to be talking past each other. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
See: [2]Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain why you chose that quote from Karen's column? Why did you assign it so much weight and put it as the first sentence in that section? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Stollznow is an expert in linguistics. The statement explains what NLP is about. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
What gives Stollznow's opinion so much weight in your mind? Did you notice that it was from an opinion column in a Skeptic's magazine? How do we deal with this sort of potential source of bias? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Rand Afrikaans University[edit]

Hi. You have undone my addition to the history of Rand Afrikaans University yesterday. I actually wrote that the school ceased to exist. Did it not? Did it it exist? Yes or no? Does it exist? Yes or no, please. Reply to these twe, then we'll talk again. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.242.181.178 (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello IP. I believe I improved the sentence. Here is another suggestion though: [3]. Please don't consider this a criticism. Your editing is welcome. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Lam Kin Keung. Sorry for the rude tone at the beginning. I was at that univerity and am really sorry it merged with lower-level and less renouned institutions (though it was not itself a great one, after Stellenbosch, Potch and Rhodes).

Thanks for the correction. But the mention of Technikon Witwatersrand -- as it stands now -- is misplaced. I suggest this:

On 1 January 2005, RAU ceased to exist as such, when its campus and some campuses of the now defunct Technikon Witwatersrand and Vista University merged to become the University of Johannesburg. The outgoing and final vice chancellor of the RAU was Prof Roux Botha. Thanks if you do it. Earl de Galantha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.128.26 (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the extra information. I will have a closer look. Feel free to make any changes yourself. I am not sure how much you know about editing Wikipedia. Here is the policy page just in the case WP:NPOV. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

You are under investigation [4]ANJPL (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The investigation is closed. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NLP. Please see my note there. Hopefully CU can clear the air William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you William M. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources and conclusions[edit]

Re-Lam Kin Keung, You deleted a heavily referenced paragraph that included a quote by one of the leading psychoanalysts in the country from Columbia University without explanation. You requested for further dialogue in the changelog. I'm not sure what additional information you require than the original texts themselves? But that is one of the most interesting and now supported arguments in NLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talkcontribs) 01:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Encyclotadd. Please read WP:BRD. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

LKK, you have not taken the approach you are advocating with your own edits, none of which have been referenced. But you are asking for that approach for the most well referenced inclusions in the article, which is clearly a mistake.

By deleting quotes from the most well respected people in the psychoanalysis community you are vandalizing this website repeatedly. You offer no facts -- just links to wikipedia rules that you do not follow yourself.

That's highly improper in any forum IMHO.

Hello Encyclotadd. Please provide diffs to the accusations you make. As far as I know, I follow Wikipedia sourcing recommendations well. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

recent revert[edit]

Why did you make this revision, diff? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, please see [5]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

plagarism[edit]

I looked at the history and found that it was you who removed the attribution to OED and plagiarized it by removing the quotes and attributing it to someone else. Please make the necessary adjustments so this does not happen again. Why exactly did you remove the quote from the OED and attribute it to someone else? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, please see [6].Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:December 2011[edit]

Dear User:Lam King Keung, my apologies! I was reverting vandalism and must have reverted to the wrong version. I hope you have a Merry Christmas! With regards, AnupamTalk 10:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Its an easy mistake to make here. I have done similar myself. Merry Christmas.Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Oxford English Dictionary definition". Thank you. --Encyclotadd (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.x.x.x (talkcontribs) 22:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Keung, Do you have any more claims or evidence to submit regarding your allegations that I disrupted wikipedia? I'm working on my reply. see section here for my reply --122.x.x.x (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sydactive checkuser[edit]

I requested a checkuser (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lam Kin Keung) but it found that you were unrelated to that user. --122.x.x.x (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE guidelines.[edit]

Hi LKK, I think that it is possible to improve the articles related to NLP. I would suggest that you read closely the WP:FRINGE guidelines. Do you think that it applies to writing an article on NLP? I'm trying to find fertile ground in editors can work collaboratively. -Reconsolidation (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reconsolidation (talkcontribs)

ANI[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reconsolidation (talkcontribs) 04:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please explain revert[edit]

Can you please explain edit. Don't just accuse me of edit warring. Deal with the evidence. --Reconsolidation (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You are engaging in the slow edit war. You have attempted using a different ID to remove and marginalize the evidence based view that neuro-linguistic programming appears on lists of discredited interventions [7]. You have been told before [8]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Neuro-Linguistic Programming[edit]

I'm still new at this and apologize for not bringing these matters up in the appropriate forum previously: I'm intending to clean up the NLP article. At the moment it reads as very imbalanced with 'scientific' support overreaching its findings, self-referencing and the use of value-laden terminology. There are appropriate criticisms of elements of NLP that should not be discredited because they are difficult to identify from the mess.

Firstly: "balance of scientific evidence reveals it to be a largely discredited pseudoscience." There has been no 'scientific evidence' of NLP being "pseudoscience". The balance of scientific evidence has not supported the explicit assumptions of NLP, though the bulk of that evidence is decades old and targeted elements of NLP that are of little or no relevance to NLP as it is used today. That some would consider NLP as 'largely discredited pseudoscience' is not supported by scientific evidence.

Secondly: Glasner-Edwards and Rawson simply quote Norcross et al. There is no "scientific evidence" - their methodology was to ask non-experts in the domain with at best rudimentary and outdated representations of the domain, whether they believed that this "thing" worked. The valid conclusion from this is that these people don't regard what they perceive NLP to 'be' works. To put three sentences of the opening section of the article into making such statements adds unwarranted weight to what are essentially unqualified, outdated opinions.

As I perceive it, there are more than enough flaws with elements of NLP to at least be rigorous in the statements made so we can strive to put forth a balanced view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdanielsmith (talkcontribs) 02:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources show what is obvious to most science literate readers when they read the phrase. They show that the neuro-linguistic programming is as pseudo-scientific as it sounds. Neuro-linguistic programming is intrinsically misleading and obscurantic and care should be taken to make that point clearer. There is more to do to clarify that majority view. Proponents of the neuro-linguistic programming are likely to claim majority views are irrelevant if those sources did no direct measurement of the neuro-linguistic programming. It is a common pseudo-scientific objection similar to; you have to try it for yourself to understand it. That can be clarified in the article. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

discuss revert[edit]

Can you please explain this revert in more detail. I think my change was more accurate and concise. --Reconsolidation (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

STiki emergency[edit]