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)
I'll try to make it as colourful as wikipedia. DaveRight 06:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
Sure thing Fred, Will do! DaveRight 03:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
You must be kidding Mysekurity, I just woke up! Cheers DaveRight 03:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks much, Woohookitty. I'll post up a few changes. Cheers DaveRight 01:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Well said, Camridge! DaveRight 09:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Woohookitty. I should thank you. I had an amazing amount of fortune this weekend on account of the block. Respect will arrive in coachloads, and will abseil in from the heavens. Cheers DaveRight 02:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Well lucky you, Davey. I still have a hangover from too swigging too much babysham on Saturday. A word of advice; never mix babysham with resolve anti-hangover powder. You get purple visions and wierd dreams all night. ATB.
Camridge 04:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
You wrote: "Yes Headley that is clearer. I am also flexible on the cult issue and am open to suggestion. I think it could be possible to add an in-between sentence like you did before. Perhaps, "NLP promoters consider NLP to be the difference that makes the difference." Cheers DaveRight 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)"
It has been proven that you use sockpuppets and therefore, you have been blocked indefinitely. We have hard evidence on this which I'm afraid you aren't going to be able to refute. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 20:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Please show evidence. I'm a coffee shop editor. I use public computers only.
DaveRight 02:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
These guys work with me in the same institution. Of course we will have a similar IP. Just as GregA and Comaze are working together as meatpuppets for the same non-centralized organization. Will you guys ever make a sensible decision? We are not fanatics. We are here to help the article and to make sure the commercial vultures don't censor fact and treat wikipedia as a soapbox. It doesn't matter if you block us. We could leave it all up to GregA and Comaze to write their obstruse fiction on their own for the next months. You would end up with nothing but drivel. Lots of censorship and a very biased wikiarticle. I suggest they be allowed to meatpuppet their way to the NLP fiction that NLPers love to read. Then after a few weeks, or months, you get some proper editors back after some solid research and change it all back again. I believe you two (Woohookitty and Katefan0) have a rather bizarre set of guidelines. You reward Comaze and GregA for acting like censors and providing vexatious litigation instead of discussion, and you block neutrally minded editors for stating what is clearly written in the literature. I vote for letting GregA and Comaze to do their worst for a while. You'll have to put up with it. Cheers DaveRight 03:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
I'll try to make it as colourful as wikipedia. DaveRight 06:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
Sure thing Fred, Will do! DaveRight 03:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
You must be kidding Mysekurity, I just woke up! Cheers DaveRight 03:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks much, Woohookitty. I'll post up a few changes. Cheers DaveRight 01:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Well said, Camridge! DaveRight 09:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Woohookitty. I should thank you. I had an amazing amount of fortune this weekend on account of the block. Respect will arrive in coachloads, and will abseil in from the heavens. Cheers DaveRight 02:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Well lucky you, Davey. I still have a hangover from too swigging too much babysham on Saturday. A word of advice; never mix babysham with resolve anti-hangover powder. You get purple visions and wierd dreams all night. ATB.
Camridge 04:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
You wrote: "Yes Headley that is clearer. I am also flexible on the cult issue and am open to suggestion. I think it could be possible to add an in-between sentence like you did before. Perhaps, "NLP promoters consider NLP to be the difference that makes the difference." Cheers DaveRight 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)"
It has been proven that you use sockpuppets and therefore, you have been blocked indefinitely. We have hard evidence on this which I'm afraid you aren't going to be able to refute. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 20:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Please show evidence. I'm a coffee shop editor. I use public computers only.
DaveRight 02:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
These guys work with me in the same institution. Of course we will have a similar IP. Just as GregA and Comaze are working together as meatpuppets for the same non-centralized organization. Will you guys ever make a sensible decision? We are not fanatics. We are here to help the article and to make sure the commercial vultures don't censor fact and treat wikipedia as a soapbox. It doesn't matter if you block us. We could leave it all up to GregA and Comaze to write their obstruse fiction on their own for the next months. You would end up with nothing but drivel. Lots of censorship and a very biased wikiarticle. I suggest they be allowed to meatpuppet their way to the NLP fiction that NLPers love to read. Then after a few weeks, or months, you get some proper editors back after some solid research and change it all back again. I believe you two (Woohookitty and Katefan0) have a rather bizarre set of guidelines. You reward Comaze and GregA for acting like censors and providing vexatious litigation instead of discussion, and you block neutrally minded editors for stating what is clearly written in the literature. I vote for letting GregA and Comaze to do their worst for a while. You'll have to put up with it. Cheers DaveRight 03:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)