User talk:JPLogan

Welcome!

Hello, JPLogan, 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! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Alai 05:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-linguistic Programming

[....](text removed)Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 17:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To non-promotional NLP editors

Hello non nlp promotional editors. Progress has been good as regards mediation and they will continue to improve as long as we all stay cool.

Since the article has been well covered and cited, and those citations have been verified multiple times even in mediation, it is time to accept the facts. The mediation requests have been satisfied as regards citations, and there are clearly more to come that can satisfy them further. However, it is clear that some NLP promoters are using whatever tactic they can to antagonize even after statements from the mediator, they try to make it appear that questions have not been answered, to add hyperbole and jargon, and generally confuse conclusive scientific findings by adding minor single and irrelevant speculative NLP studies. They also seem to be attempting to break the 100Kilobite barrier on file size.

The solution is to stay cool, take a harder scientific line (exclude single minor speculative studies) and do not stand for any self-desctructive NLPpromotional nonsense. NLP is about neuro, linguistics (neurolinguistics) and programming. It uses scientific sounding jargon and misplaced concepts in a confusing way, and therefore must be clarified using scientific studies, neurology, psychology and other reliable and neutral sources.

The solid evidence presented has indeed been covered in the archives multiple times. If an NLP promoter insists that they have not had their question answered when it has been covered before, simply stay cool and refer them to the archives.

If an NLP promoter insists that the scientific studies are wrong, or that science is wrong in general, then they are using a pseudoscientific argument, and can be directed to the archives.

If an NLP promoter makes multiple edits in order to make editing harder then simply revert. If it is convenient, try not to delete any valid edits in the process, but if it is not convenient, simply revert the lot.

Do your best to help the mediator as NLP is deliberately very confusing. Provide help with seperating obscurantist jargon from real neurology or psychology, and help with the identification of hype and pseudoscientific argument and NLP excuses.

Considering the rigor of the present article (though the 2000 section still needs checking and making concise) it is clear that further NPOV clarifying and brevifying can occur. Best regards JPLogan 04:25, 30 October 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 02:52, 22 November 2005 (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]

JP would you add to the "what this article needs list"

Would you add your wants for the article to be finished here In order to make sure everyone gets what they want I am just trying to keep track of it. jVirus 09:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored comment

Hi -- I have refactored a portion of your most recent remarks on NLP that I found needlessly baiting and antagonistic. Please think your comments over a little more carefully next time. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying we need to behave unlike most other wikipedia editors? JPLogan 01:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. More leeway is afforded other Wikipedia editors usually, but the ones who have participated in this particular article have behaved so poorly en masse that all the slack is gone. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again JP. Look at it this way: With the NLPcompany on a tighter leash, the facts are far more likely to be better explained, and with proper weight towards scientific clarity this time. And I'm sure the mediators will see fit to revert any of the usual vandalism by anonymous miscreants. Regards HeadleyDown 02:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate comments

Using another editor's real name and otherwise casting aspersions as you have done this evening is inappropriate. You've already been warned against doing this very same thing. I am blocking you for 12 hours. The block lengths will grow geometrically from here. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 06:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katefan0. I would like to know precisely how my edits involve casting aspersions. I am at a loss. I civilly offered Comaze a set of options in order to improve discussion. It is no secret that Comaze has a vested interest in promoting NLP. He has been open and honest with this fact, and with facts about his identity and affiliations from the beginning. I am using my own name, and I am also open and honest about this. If you wish to block me for being civil, open and honest, then again, I am at a loss. I would very much like some reassurance that my posts have been civil. I would truly like to know, are you interested in encouraging civility in discussion? So far, all the evidence points to you reducing civility and wishing to censor openness. JPLogan 06:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to mention Comaze's real name; he's never revealed it on-wiki and therefore no need for you to do so for him. You only mention his website to subtly cast aspersions. Neither are appropriate. I will not debate this with you; simply don't do it again. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 06:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries JP. OK, regular editors do know that the said NLP promoter has actually revealed his name and affiliations through actively linking it on wiki whilst promoting the said vested interests. Doesn't matter! The mentors/arbitrators will eventually get round to honouring their rule to block or ban obsessive censorship of facts about engrams, occult, scientology, and all the other sociological and scientific facts that go against the commercial promotion of NLP. Regards HeadleyDown 07:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

human potential industry - misunderstanding

You said, "You have claimed that NLP is not new age, but part of the human potential industry. Your assertion is inaccurate, as the human potential movement is part of the new age." - In fact I said that HeadleyDown made the claim that NLP is a member of both New Age movement and human potential movement. ---=-C-=- 04:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Comaze. According to the literature, NLP is both New Age and of the Human Potential movement. JPLogan 10:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely

This account and Medius maximus have been proven to be a sockpuppet of User:DaveRight and have therefore been blocked indefinitely. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]