User talk:DaveRight: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:52, 23 March 2006

Welcome!

Hello, DaveRight, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

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)[reply]

I'll try to make it as colourful as wikipedia. DaveRight 06:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop. Fred Bauder 02:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing Fred, Will do! DaveRight 03:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -Mys e kurity^{(have you seen this?)} 04:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding Mysekurity, I just woke up! Cheers DaveRight 03:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Please refrain from making personal attacks, such as "weasly cultsucking bullshit merchants". I realize that may have been meant as humor, however given the rampant hostility on that page, it is best to err on the side of caution with humor right now. I have been asked to monitor for violations of civility on that page. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming case. Raul654 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, DaveRight says, "Only with regard to throwing the book at Comaze and other miscreants."[1] Please remove this personal attack from the NLP discussion page. regards, --Comaze 10:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze, please post more petty objections. I look forward to expanding upon all the facts you have so desperately fought to censor on the article page. DaveRight 04:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structure Occult

Dave, you put this "The occult aspects of NLP were always there in the "structure of magic". This is a good comment. Do point out the occult aspects. I really know nothing of it so it will be my first explaination exposure. jVirus File:Confederate Battle Flag.svg 05:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We can get to that in the article. Lets just say for now that its blindingly obvious. You'd need to read some Aleister Crowley or some similar magick principles books. DaveRight 01:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guy

My name is Terry. How are you doing? I would like to ask how it contributes to the Dianetics article to have links to NPL simply because a term used by Dianetics has in common with NPL, the same term, "engram?" You know what I'm saying? The term has been in the english language for a long time. 55 years ago Dianetics begin to use it. Dianetics uses it almost exactly as the common dictionary uses it, though you could argue a small exception. The problem I see with linking to NPL, etc, etc, is that Dianetics is hotly contested. We can hardly get the dang word defined in the article and along comes the disruptive and disspersive links to NPL, do you follow? thanks. Terryeo 08:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to leave you 2, "hi guy" messages, but hit a key by mistake and left you more than I meant to. Have fun. Terryeo 08:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a neuroscience perspective, there is a difference. Scientists use the scientific definition of engram, and pseudoscientists use the scientology/dianetics version. DaveRight 03:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NLP

I gave some observations about your change proposal on the NLP workshop page. Take a look, give it some thought and respond. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry for taking so long. You had some good ideas, btw. Making the language simpler is a very good goal. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, Woohookitty. I'll post up a few changes. Cheers DaveRight 01:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for 3 hours for your most recent comment, which included: Just the same pseudoscientific objections. We could present another set of NLP excuses. Don't cast aspersions on other peoples' motives or denigrate their opinions simply because they differ from yours. Remember to assume good faith. Everyone is welcome to contribute at Wikipedia. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katefan0. I understand you are under a lot of pressure here. You seem to have taken the job of 4 mentors, and I completely understand. "Pseudoscientific excuses" is a term used in literature about NLP (in Lilienfeld, Carroll, Beyerstein, Winkin, and other papers and books). I was being as helpful as I could without directly having to reply to each of the objections posed by GregA yet again. And I did say I was willing to present NLP excuses within the article. I am willing to put up with being blocked for stating scientific views, while NLPers are encouraged to continue their objection-sulk strategy. For the sake of constructive discussion I will refrain from using the term "pseudoscientific excuses" whatever the literature states.

I would also like to point out the unreasonable objections of NLPers are on the wane. They seem to be giving up on their censorship strategies and generally just not bothering to present any significant opposition to our posting of NLP literature or literature about NLP. Certainly their inability to cover up what is stated clearly in the literature has been highlighted in the last swish discussion. Placing their preferred line on the swish, against consensus and against the literature is fine for now also. I don't object to it. Moving forward with the workshop is fine and I am willing to work with you on that. DaveRight 06:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 I've blocked you for 3 hours for your most recent comment, which included: ''Just the same pseudoscientific objections.  We could present another set of NLP excuses.''  Don't cast aspersions on other peoples' motives or denigrate their opinions simply because they differ from yours. Remember to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. Everyone is welcome to contribute at Wikipedia. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|poll]]</small> 03:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
+Hello Katefan0.  I understand you are under a lot of pressure here.  You seem to have taken the job of 4 mentors, and I completely understand.  "Pseudoscientific excuses" is a term used in literature about NLP (in Lilienfeld, Carroll, Beyerstein, Winkin, and other papers and books).  I was being as helpful as I could without directly having to reply to each of the objections posed by GregA yet again. And I did say I was willing to present NLP excuses within the article. I am willing to put up with being blocked for stating scientific views, while NLPers are encouraged to continue their objection-sulk strategy.  For the sake of constructive discussion I will refrain from using the term "pseudoscientific excuses" whatever the literature states.
+I would also like to point out the unreasonable objections of NLPers are on the wane.  They seem to be giving up on their censorship strategies and generally just not bothering to present any significant opposition to our posting of NLP literature or literature about NLP.  Certainly their inability to cover up what is stated clearly in the literature has been highlighted in the last swish discussion.  Placing their preferred line on the swish, against consensus and against the literature is fine for now also.  I don't object to it.  Moving forward with the workshop is fine and I am willing to work with you on that.  [[User:DaveRight|DaveRight]] 06:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)