Hello! As part of an MBA assignment, I am conducting interviews with active Wikipedia contributors. Would I be able to ask you a few brief questions about your work on Wikipedia? I am available to communicate via email or on Wikipedia. Thank you! LBV13 ( talk) 17:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, my name is Michael Parks and I am a student at FIU in Miami, Florida. My current college project involves me, and those who i find to help me, redo the "Bert Oliva" page. I was hoping that you could help because i see that you have helped out with Tony Robbins, and Bert Oliva is like the 'Latin' Tony Robbins...
Well I barely get all these wikipedia rules so if you could somehow help that would be greatly appreciated! The page can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michaelparks/Bert_Oliva
Thank you very much for all of your help! -- Michaelparks ( talk) 17:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Good catch on the Psychology page (change from "Freudian psychology" to "Freudian psychodynamics"). - Do c t orW 05:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Blimey you have been busy AP! I hardly recognised it. Haven't looked much recently as the whole AT thing was a bit time consuming. Fainites barley 22:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Quick! Fix those two cite errors! Fainites barley 22:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
These are the 4 categories on Wiki. I think the argument lies between numbers 2 and 3. Some would say 2. If its 3. then the fact that a number of notable scientists consider it pseuodoscience should still be in the article. NLP does seem to have quite a number. Has anybody notable from the NLP world ever specifically answered the pseudoscience charge or do they just ignore it as irrelevent?
- Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
- Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
The ArbCom ruled that the following should not be regarded as examples of pseudoscience:
- Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
- Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
Fainites barley 22:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Grinder and Bostic St Clair offer a reply in Whispering and in a recent seminar they laid out their position. Essentially in the late 2007 seminar Grinder agrees that the hyped up versions of NLP are pseudoscience/New Age. NLP has been commercially exploited. Unethical trainers and practitioners are offering services in the name of NLP without proper training, accreditation or qualifications. But he argued most of the so called evidence-based did provide any evidence for their claims and have not properly investigated NLP. That's why he proposed a framework in Whispering to bring the field back into line with neuroscientific, and cognitive linguistic research. Grinder and Bostic St Clair's reply to critics are partly laid out in their refined epistemological position, proposed research, and refined operational definitions for various patterns. Grinder clearly distinguished the NLP epistemology from an empirical epistemology which he believes is overextended in western society. They propose further research and attempt to correct some of the flaws in previous studies. The stressed the importance of making a distinction between "NLP modeling, NLP training and NLP application" as Grinder believes the application of NLP to psychotherapy, business communication is not the core of NLP but the products of the modeling process. This distinction has often been lost in the research and by various practitioners. So, I think that NLP is bordering 'generally considered pseudoscience' and 'questionable science' but sections of the community are attempting to bring it in line with legitimate scientific practice. In a way this is similar to psychoanalysis. There is no enough evidence to put it in "generally considered pseudoscience" because many papers that have NLP as its focus suggest further research. As a discipline, it is still in its infancy and is still agreeing on definitions, terms and rules for argument/evidence. ---- Action potential t c 03:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks to me as if a whole section is needed on this then because the issue is never going to go away. Its a perennial battle on the NLP page. How about we have a section devoted to this vexed question which says what the likes of Beyerstein/Lilienfield etc etc say, and why they say its questionable science or pseudoscience. Also, briefly, the extent and limitations of what research there was. Then the replies and distinctions as you've set out above and any other material on the issue. As long it's all verified and notable etc. It's worth it's own section as its the one issue that causes 90% of all the disputes. We could call it Science or pseudoscience? Fainites barley 10:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
You added that attributions are needed in the systems theory article. I think a lot more copyediting is needed there. I haven't found the time to rewrite the whole article, so once in a while I change small parts. If you have any idea's, please go ahead. That's more then welcome. -- Mdd ( talk) 15:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- My subject knowledge is limited. I'll first dig out some reliable texts and other source, then help you with copyediting certain sections. The attribution tag was just to specify who was referred to by the phrase, "many were led to believe". Many, of who specifically? Especially if you're active on that article, I'd like to copyedit it with you. Best regards, ---- Action potential t c 01:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Congrats AP ! [1] Fainites barley 14:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Fainites, if it works out I'll return to my resting potential. ---- Action potential t c 14:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm contacting you because you look like Wikipedia's resident expert on NLP.
We don't yet have a List of basic neuro-linguistic programming topics.
If you were to build one, it might give you a fresh perspective on the topic.
The lists in the set all have the same basic format (but not identical), so to start the list, click on the redlink above, and add the following line to the page and click save:
{{subst:BLT|neuro-linguistic programming|Neuro-linguistic programming}}
Then fill in the list with links, changing and adding headings as needed.
When (near) complete, add it to Lists of basic topics. Browse the lists on that page for examples and ideas on structuring your list.
If you do create it and work on it, I'll be sure to drop in and help.
The Transhumanist 09:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds very interesting as having a basic list of topics would help refocus the project and article. ---- Action potential t c 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated NLP Modeling, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NLP Modeling and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.
MfD nomination of Portal:Neuro-linguistic programming
Portal:Neuro-linguistic programming, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Neuro-linguistic programming and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Neuro-linguistic programming during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Poltair ( talk) 18:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey AP. Between all the edits you've made to the Psychology page and your user name, you seem like someone well-suited to give the Experimental Psychology page a quick read-over and suggest areas for improvement. Would you mind taking a couple minutes to check it out? I won't try roping you into more work afterward, promise :P XL2D ( talk) 16:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you've been doing a lot of editing to the Neurolinguistics article, and I just wanted to let you know, I'm slowly working on compiling some information to make a section on common experimental techniques. I have a user subpage at User:Politizer/Neurotechniques where I'm jotting down studies that are good examples of the main techniques I can think of (mismatch; various kinds of priming; violation studies; active distraction), so if you have any ideas for things to add you're welcome to check it out. (Right now everything I have at that page was kind of hastily thrown together, so I haven't bothered to write full citations yet; I'll try to get around to that later...especially for some of them that aren't specific, like Pulvermuller et al. 1999, which could be one of any number of actual papers, so I should get the full citation in before I forget which one I was thinking of.) — Politizer talk/ contribs 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, I don't know of any good general introduction to neurolinguistics as a whole; in my experience, the best stuff available is articles from TRENDS in Cognitive Science (TICS), which are usually overview & literature review sorts of articles written by people who are very active in the field, and focus in on a certain research question. (For example, one by McCandliss is an overview of studies and theories on the Visual Word Form Area in the occipital lobe, one by Shapiro & Caramazza is an overview of research into how word category is stored and processed, etc.) Those kinds of articles are useful if you're looking into a specific topic, but maybe not so much for linguistics in general. There aren't many textbook-level neurolinguistics introductions that I'm aware of, since it's such a young field, but The Ascent of Babel by Gerry Altmann (1997) might be good (I've only read bits and pieces, but it seems to be a pretty accessible neuro/psycho sort of thing), and Cambridge University Press has two books out, Neurolinguistics by John Ingram and Neurolinguistics and Linguistic Aphasiology by David Caplan, but I'm not familiar with either of those yet. — Politizer talk/ contribs 17:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
If you email me from my user page, that will give me your email, and I will then send you the papers on the assumption that Heap agrees. I will also try to get a copy of Newbrook's paper in the same issue which addresses the linguistics side of NLP mostly ignored in all the academic literature. Peter Damian ( talk) 12:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Major rewrites of sections really need discussing first. Some of the changes appear OK, but also the general tone has been changed. Its very difficult when you do these multiple amendments to sort out the good from the bad. Smaller changes, with anything significant discussed first makes more sense -- Snowded ( talk) 06:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Look, I really don't want to be difficult. But that one paragraph change removes good material well expressed. I can't see why you want to change it? -- Snowded ( talk) 07:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I was too speedy. There was only one line of text and I did not check the history or the talk page. It will not happen again. J8079s ( talk) 20:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I will assume good faith in your change on the sidebar without consensus to do so and, in fact, when the weight of opinion at this time is contrary to your change. But please note that, if you continue unilaterally deciding to change the sidebar without consensus, there will be consequences for you. Consensus is a core principle of Wikipedia. I don't know how long you have been editing, but if you've been around more than a few months you should know that. If you are a relative newcomer, no harm done; just please respect consensus in the future. Thank you. Ward3001 ( talk) 13:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You raise an interesting point. My way of addressing the point is as follows. Psychotherapies belong under the umbrella of applied science. You may want to elaborate the psychotherapy Wikipedia entry. The theory and research behind the psychotherapies belong under personality psychology, which is located under basic science. Freud's psychoanalytic theory attempted to explain the development of the personality. I, however, grant you that many contemporary personality researchers are not Freudian in orientation although I expect that many of them respect Freud's pioneering work. If you have extra differentiated terms that you think deserve examination, a good place to insert them would be in the psychology template, Template:Psychology. Iss246 ( talk) 14:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
AP, I think the fundamental issue is that the concepts "research" and "applied" are not simple opposites. Instead there are probably three categories: (1) research on fundamental psychology, (2) research on applied psychology, and (3) practice (application) not involving research. That second category is seriously deprecated when trying to divide into the two categories of research/application. It would be like describing the field of medicine as a "non-research" field because it is concerned with the application of human biology, even though medical research is a vast endeavor fed by massive funding. Research on the applied aspects of psychology (clinical psych, educational psych, sports psych, organizational psych) is probably greater in quantity (although perhaps not quality) than research on fundamental aspects of psychology. Editing WP is a great way for all of us to learn. I hope you keep editing and questing for knowledge in psychology. Nesbit ( talk) 14:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
In reply to the note you left on my talk page, I think that psychodynamics and humanistic psychology don't just fit under applied psychology. They are part of the fundamental aspects of psychology. Freud and Rogers influence cannot be dismissed. Both are regarded in the top 10 influential psychology theorists. There influence can be seen in fundamental aspects of social psychology, developmental psychology and personality psychology. They're approaches to psychotherapy (e.g. client-centered psychotherapy) are still prominent in clinical psychology. Apparently, there are still Psy.D in Psychoanalysis which was a news to me. My university is almost exclusively drive by rodent work and CBT. We still have a large social and developmental psychology school. The behavioural neuroscience school is the most well-funded though. I'm confused as to why the editors are so convinced that "basic science" is the most appropriate umbrella term for what most psychologists call research psychology or academic psychology. ----Action potential discuss contribs 10:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't contest or dismiss the importance of Freud. That amounts to putting words in my pen. As far as the sidebar is concerned, Freud is subsumed under personality and clinical psychology because his work concerns both. Freud had an ambitious theory of personality development. He also developed a treatment. Freud also has relevance to social psychology. Freud is also represented in numerous psychology-related Wikipedia entries, including the Category:Branches of psychology, which was created to take in more finer-grained categories than the sidebar. The sidebar pertains to broader divisions within psychology. Rogers also developed a treatment although his theory of personality was not as developed as that of Freud. Rogers is best subsumed under clinical psychology. Freud is not represented in the social psychology (psychology) Wikipedia entry (there is also a sociology version of the entry). I recommend that given your interest in Freud you augment the social psychology (psychology) entry by adding Freud to it. Iss246 ( talk) 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
In the page List of studies on Neuro-linguistic programming you made a revision as of 01:58, 16 December 2006 by adding text that included 5 ref tags, this resulted in 5 new cite errors. Over time 4 of those ref tags have been fleshed out and become full references. However <ref name="Young 1995"/> continues to cause a cite error. Could you go back and make some improvements? Thanks. 75.69.0.58 ( talk) 22:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I inserted the reference you were concerned about. I will make some improvements to that page when I get some time. ---- Action potential discuss contribs 13:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Love to help in a bit but I've got Attachment theory going through FAC just at the moment. Fainites barley scribs 13:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the ce's AP! Very decent of you. You know how it gets when you've read the thing so many times you can't see for looking. Fainites barley scribs 06:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Re survival/attachment/monotropy/primary caregiver etc Watsons view indicates that there may be sound evolutionary/ethological reasons for montropy. "....debating who to run to while being rapidly approached by a leopard (let's see, X, presently in a tree, holds me nicely, but Y, on a rock, is good at grooming, and Z on a different rock has the sweetest milk, so, um.....) could concievably be bad for an infants health.". Fainites barley scribs 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Neuro-linguistic programming, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
Verbal
chat 10:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- That was my error. I thought I was making a temporary edit in my own userspace. You'd restored it before I had a chance. ---- Action potential discuss contribs 13:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
In
this edit from 16 November 2009 you added a reference <ref name=Bandler & Bostic St Clair 2002"/> to
Neuro-linguistic programming. Could you please go back and fill in the details, or tell me where you found this reference? I am aware of the original typo "Clairm", which you have fixed already, but that has not solved this problem.
Debresser (
talk) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, in the article Pseudoscience, section "Identifying pseudoscience", you added a reflink to "Thagard 1978" but did not identify any of the references you added relating to that work as "thagard 1978". Since there are several, and not all are the same, I guessed that the one later in the same paragraph is the one you intended, but am not sure. Could you review the section and make surte that the reference I connected with that name is the one you intended? Thanks! - Salamurai ( talk) 14:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
You are in a content dispute. That means you need to seek agreement to disputed changes, you can't just remove text you don't like to the talk page. Propose changes there, see what other editors say. If none come then use the various notice boards to request comment. Its a simple process and you need to allow time for it to play out. Taking it to ANI without first exhausting other processes would (I think) be a mistake. -- Snowded TALK 10:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Given that you are in the middle of a set of edits I will leave it for a bit. However I do not agree with the title change, or organising the criticism by the names of critics. By the way, it would be more normal to use a sandpit for a major set of changes rather than use the article itself -- Snowded TALK 13:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi AP. Remember you did that big title on my user page for me? It's not working any more and I have no idea how to fix it! Could you give it a quick reframe or something. Cheers. Fainites barley scribs 22:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks AP! It's been there so long I really missed it. Fainites barley scribs 23:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 02:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am trying to bring WP:WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics back to semi-active status. Toward that end, I have moved all members who have not posted to the project page in the past six months to a section, "Inactive members." If you wish to be active in the project, I hope you will move your name back to the section, "Members." You may also remove your name if you are no longer interested in the project. Thanks, and happy editing, Cnilep ( talk) 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Template:NLP sidebar has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 02:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
File:Eye accessing cues2.png missing description details
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
Please also consider updating other files you created or uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you.Please claim your upload(s): File:Eye accessing cues2.png
Hi, This media was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices,
However, due to changes in the copyright situation in some jurisdictions, there is a need to ensure media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed. It would be appreciated if you were able to confirm that it was your own work, by marking it as {{ own}}, Fully completeing the {{ information}} block, and leaving an acknowledgement on the file description page to indicate that you've accepted the license shown (and updated the {{ information}} accordingly. If you have other uploads, please consider "claiming" them in a similar manner, You can find a list of files you have created here.
If you don't want to keep your media on English Wikipedia, please nominate it for deletion under Criteria G7 of the Criteria for Speedy deletion ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 13:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Eye accessing cues2.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello! As part of an MBA assignment, I am conducting interviews with active Wikipedia contributors. Would I be able to ask you a few brief questions about your work on Wikipedia? I am available to communicate via email or on Wikipedia. Thank you! LBV13 ( talk) 17:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, my name is Michael Parks and I am a student at FIU in Miami, Florida. My current college project involves me, and those who i find to help me, redo the "Bert Oliva" page. I was hoping that you could help because i see that you have helped out with Tony Robbins, and Bert Oliva is like the 'Latin' Tony Robbins...
Well I barely get all these wikipedia rules so if you could somehow help that would be greatly appreciated! The page can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michaelparks/Bert_Oliva
Thank you very much for all of your help! -- Michaelparks ( talk) 17:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Good catch on the Psychology page (change from "Freudian psychology" to "Freudian psychodynamics"). - Do c t orW 05:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Blimey you have been busy AP! I hardly recognised it. Haven't looked much recently as the whole AT thing was a bit time consuming. Fainites barley 22:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Quick! Fix those two cite errors! Fainites barley 22:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
These are the 4 categories on Wiki. I think the argument lies between numbers 2 and 3. Some would say 2. If its 3. then the fact that a number of notable scientists consider it pseuodoscience should still be in the article. NLP does seem to have quite a number. Has anybody notable from the NLP world ever specifically answered the pseudoscience charge or do they just ignore it as irrelevent?
- Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
- Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
The ArbCom ruled that the following should not be regarded as examples of pseudoscience:
- Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
- Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
Fainites barley 22:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Grinder and Bostic St Clair offer a reply in Whispering and in a recent seminar they laid out their position. Essentially in the late 2007 seminar Grinder agrees that the hyped up versions of NLP are pseudoscience/New Age. NLP has been commercially exploited. Unethical trainers and practitioners are offering services in the name of NLP without proper training, accreditation or qualifications. But he argued most of the so called evidence-based did provide any evidence for their claims and have not properly investigated NLP. That's why he proposed a framework in Whispering to bring the field back into line with neuroscientific, and cognitive linguistic research. Grinder and Bostic St Clair's reply to critics are partly laid out in their refined epistemological position, proposed research, and refined operational definitions for various patterns. Grinder clearly distinguished the NLP epistemology from an empirical epistemology which he believes is overextended in western society. They propose further research and attempt to correct some of the flaws in previous studies. The stressed the importance of making a distinction between "NLP modeling, NLP training and NLP application" as Grinder believes the application of NLP to psychotherapy, business communication is not the core of NLP but the products of the modeling process. This distinction has often been lost in the research and by various practitioners. So, I think that NLP is bordering 'generally considered pseudoscience' and 'questionable science' but sections of the community are attempting to bring it in line with legitimate scientific practice. In a way this is similar to psychoanalysis. There is no enough evidence to put it in "generally considered pseudoscience" because many papers that have NLP as its focus suggest further research. As a discipline, it is still in its infancy and is still agreeing on definitions, terms and rules for argument/evidence. ---- Action potential t c 03:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks to me as if a whole section is needed on this then because the issue is never going to go away. Its a perennial battle on the NLP page. How about we have a section devoted to this vexed question which says what the likes of Beyerstein/Lilienfield etc etc say, and why they say its questionable science or pseudoscience. Also, briefly, the extent and limitations of what research there was. Then the replies and distinctions as you've set out above and any other material on the issue. As long it's all verified and notable etc. It's worth it's own section as its the one issue that causes 90% of all the disputes. We could call it Science or pseudoscience? Fainites barley 10:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
You added that attributions are needed in the systems theory article. I think a lot more copyediting is needed there. I haven't found the time to rewrite the whole article, so once in a while I change small parts. If you have any idea's, please go ahead. That's more then welcome. -- Mdd ( talk) 15:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- My subject knowledge is limited. I'll first dig out some reliable texts and other source, then help you with copyediting certain sections. The attribution tag was just to specify who was referred to by the phrase, "many were led to believe". Many, of who specifically? Especially if you're active on that article, I'd like to copyedit it with you. Best regards, ---- Action potential t c 01:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Congrats AP ! [1] Fainites barley 14:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Fainites, if it works out I'll return to my resting potential. ---- Action potential t c 14:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm contacting you because you look like Wikipedia's resident expert on NLP.
We don't yet have a List of basic neuro-linguistic programming topics.
If you were to build one, it might give you a fresh perspective on the topic.
The lists in the set all have the same basic format (but not identical), so to start the list, click on the redlink above, and add the following line to the page and click save:
{{subst:BLT|neuro-linguistic programming|Neuro-linguistic programming}}
Then fill in the list with links, changing and adding headings as needed.
When (near) complete, add it to Lists of basic topics. Browse the lists on that page for examples and ideas on structuring your list.
If you do create it and work on it, I'll be sure to drop in and help.
The Transhumanist 09:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds very interesting as having a basic list of topics would help refocus the project and article. ---- Action potential t c 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated NLP Modeling, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NLP Modeling and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.
MfD nomination of Portal:Neuro-linguistic programming
Portal:Neuro-linguistic programming, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Neuro-linguistic programming and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Neuro-linguistic programming during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Poltair ( talk) 18:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey AP. Between all the edits you've made to the Psychology page and your user name, you seem like someone well-suited to give the Experimental Psychology page a quick read-over and suggest areas for improvement. Would you mind taking a couple minutes to check it out? I won't try roping you into more work afterward, promise :P XL2D ( talk) 16:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you've been doing a lot of editing to the Neurolinguistics article, and I just wanted to let you know, I'm slowly working on compiling some information to make a section on common experimental techniques. I have a user subpage at User:Politizer/Neurotechniques where I'm jotting down studies that are good examples of the main techniques I can think of (mismatch; various kinds of priming; violation studies; active distraction), so if you have any ideas for things to add you're welcome to check it out. (Right now everything I have at that page was kind of hastily thrown together, so I haven't bothered to write full citations yet; I'll try to get around to that later...especially for some of them that aren't specific, like Pulvermuller et al. 1999, which could be one of any number of actual papers, so I should get the full citation in before I forget which one I was thinking of.) — Politizer talk/ contribs 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, I don't know of any good general introduction to neurolinguistics as a whole; in my experience, the best stuff available is articles from TRENDS in Cognitive Science (TICS), which are usually overview & literature review sorts of articles written by people who are very active in the field, and focus in on a certain research question. (For example, one by McCandliss is an overview of studies and theories on the Visual Word Form Area in the occipital lobe, one by Shapiro & Caramazza is an overview of research into how word category is stored and processed, etc.) Those kinds of articles are useful if you're looking into a specific topic, but maybe not so much for linguistics in general. There aren't many textbook-level neurolinguistics introductions that I'm aware of, since it's such a young field, but The Ascent of Babel by Gerry Altmann (1997) might be good (I've only read bits and pieces, but it seems to be a pretty accessible neuro/psycho sort of thing), and Cambridge University Press has two books out, Neurolinguistics by John Ingram and Neurolinguistics and Linguistic Aphasiology by David Caplan, but I'm not familiar with either of those yet. — Politizer talk/ contribs 17:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
If you email me from my user page, that will give me your email, and I will then send you the papers on the assumption that Heap agrees. I will also try to get a copy of Newbrook's paper in the same issue which addresses the linguistics side of NLP mostly ignored in all the academic literature. Peter Damian ( talk) 12:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Major rewrites of sections really need discussing first. Some of the changes appear OK, but also the general tone has been changed. Its very difficult when you do these multiple amendments to sort out the good from the bad. Smaller changes, with anything significant discussed first makes more sense -- Snowded ( talk) 06:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Look, I really don't want to be difficult. But that one paragraph change removes good material well expressed. I can't see why you want to change it? -- Snowded ( talk) 07:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I was too speedy. There was only one line of text and I did not check the history or the talk page. It will not happen again. J8079s ( talk) 20:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I will assume good faith in your change on the sidebar without consensus to do so and, in fact, when the weight of opinion at this time is contrary to your change. But please note that, if you continue unilaterally deciding to change the sidebar without consensus, there will be consequences for you. Consensus is a core principle of Wikipedia. I don't know how long you have been editing, but if you've been around more than a few months you should know that. If you are a relative newcomer, no harm done; just please respect consensus in the future. Thank you. Ward3001 ( talk) 13:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You raise an interesting point. My way of addressing the point is as follows. Psychotherapies belong under the umbrella of applied science. You may want to elaborate the psychotherapy Wikipedia entry. The theory and research behind the psychotherapies belong under personality psychology, which is located under basic science. Freud's psychoanalytic theory attempted to explain the development of the personality. I, however, grant you that many contemporary personality researchers are not Freudian in orientation although I expect that many of them respect Freud's pioneering work. If you have extra differentiated terms that you think deserve examination, a good place to insert them would be in the psychology template, Template:Psychology. Iss246 ( talk) 14:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
AP, I think the fundamental issue is that the concepts "research" and "applied" are not simple opposites. Instead there are probably three categories: (1) research on fundamental psychology, (2) research on applied psychology, and (3) practice (application) not involving research. That second category is seriously deprecated when trying to divide into the two categories of research/application. It would be like describing the field of medicine as a "non-research" field because it is concerned with the application of human biology, even though medical research is a vast endeavor fed by massive funding. Research on the applied aspects of psychology (clinical psych, educational psych, sports psych, organizational psych) is probably greater in quantity (although perhaps not quality) than research on fundamental aspects of psychology. Editing WP is a great way for all of us to learn. I hope you keep editing and questing for knowledge in psychology. Nesbit ( talk) 14:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
In reply to the note you left on my talk page, I think that psychodynamics and humanistic psychology don't just fit under applied psychology. They are part of the fundamental aspects of psychology. Freud and Rogers influence cannot be dismissed. Both are regarded in the top 10 influential psychology theorists. There influence can be seen in fundamental aspects of social psychology, developmental psychology and personality psychology. They're approaches to psychotherapy (e.g. client-centered psychotherapy) are still prominent in clinical psychology. Apparently, there are still Psy.D in Psychoanalysis which was a news to me. My university is almost exclusively drive by rodent work and CBT. We still have a large social and developmental psychology school. The behavioural neuroscience school is the most well-funded though. I'm confused as to why the editors are so convinced that "basic science" is the most appropriate umbrella term for what most psychologists call research psychology or academic psychology. ----Action potential discuss contribs 10:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't contest or dismiss the importance of Freud. That amounts to putting words in my pen. As far as the sidebar is concerned, Freud is subsumed under personality and clinical psychology because his work concerns both. Freud had an ambitious theory of personality development. He also developed a treatment. Freud also has relevance to social psychology. Freud is also represented in numerous psychology-related Wikipedia entries, including the Category:Branches of psychology, which was created to take in more finer-grained categories than the sidebar. The sidebar pertains to broader divisions within psychology. Rogers also developed a treatment although his theory of personality was not as developed as that of Freud. Rogers is best subsumed under clinical psychology. Freud is not represented in the social psychology (psychology) Wikipedia entry (there is also a sociology version of the entry). I recommend that given your interest in Freud you augment the social psychology (psychology) entry by adding Freud to it. Iss246 ( talk) 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
In the page List of studies on Neuro-linguistic programming you made a revision as of 01:58, 16 December 2006 by adding text that included 5 ref tags, this resulted in 5 new cite errors. Over time 4 of those ref tags have been fleshed out and become full references. However <ref name="Young 1995"/> continues to cause a cite error. Could you go back and make some improvements? Thanks. 75.69.0.58 ( talk) 22:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I inserted the reference you were concerned about. I will make some improvements to that page when I get some time. ---- Action potential discuss contribs 13:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Love to help in a bit but I've got Attachment theory going through FAC just at the moment. Fainites barley scribs 13:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the ce's AP! Very decent of you. You know how it gets when you've read the thing so many times you can't see for looking. Fainites barley scribs 06:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Re survival/attachment/monotropy/primary caregiver etc Watsons view indicates that there may be sound evolutionary/ethological reasons for montropy. "....debating who to run to while being rapidly approached by a leopard (let's see, X, presently in a tree, holds me nicely, but Y, on a rock, is good at grooming, and Z on a different rock has the sweetest milk, so, um.....) could concievably be bad for an infants health.". Fainites barley scribs 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Neuro-linguistic programming, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
Verbal
chat 10:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- That was my error. I thought I was making a temporary edit in my own userspace. You'd restored it before I had a chance. ---- Action potential discuss contribs 13:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
In
this edit from 16 November 2009 you added a reference <ref name=Bandler & Bostic St Clair 2002"/> to
Neuro-linguistic programming. Could you please go back and fill in the details, or tell me where you found this reference? I am aware of the original typo "Clairm", which you have fixed already, but that has not solved this problem.
Debresser (
talk) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, in the article Pseudoscience, section "Identifying pseudoscience", you added a reflink to "Thagard 1978" but did not identify any of the references you added relating to that work as "thagard 1978". Since there are several, and not all are the same, I guessed that the one later in the same paragraph is the one you intended, but am not sure. Could you review the section and make surte that the reference I connected with that name is the one you intended? Thanks! - Salamurai ( talk) 14:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
You are in a content dispute. That means you need to seek agreement to disputed changes, you can't just remove text you don't like to the talk page. Propose changes there, see what other editors say. If none come then use the various notice boards to request comment. Its a simple process and you need to allow time for it to play out. Taking it to ANI without first exhausting other processes would (I think) be a mistake. -- Snowded TALK 10:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Given that you are in the middle of a set of edits I will leave it for a bit. However I do not agree with the title change, or organising the criticism by the names of critics. By the way, it would be more normal to use a sandpit for a major set of changes rather than use the article itself -- Snowded TALK 13:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi AP. Remember you did that big title on my user page for me? It's not working any more and I have no idea how to fix it! Could you give it a quick reframe or something. Cheers. Fainites barley scribs 22:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks AP! It's been there so long I really missed it. Fainites barley scribs 23:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 02:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am trying to bring WP:WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics back to semi-active status. Toward that end, I have moved all members who have not posted to the project page in the past six months to a section, "Inactive members." If you wish to be active in the project, I hope you will move your name back to the section, "Members." You may also remove your name if you are no longer interested in the project. Thanks, and happy editing, Cnilep ( talk) 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Template:NLP sidebar has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 02:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
File:Eye accessing cues2.png missing description details
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
Please also consider updating other files you created or uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you.Please claim your upload(s): File:Eye accessing cues2.png
Hi, This media was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices,
However, due to changes in the copyright situation in some jurisdictions, there is a need to ensure media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed. It would be appreciated if you were able to confirm that it was your own work, by marking it as {{ own}}, Fully completeing the {{ information}} block, and leaving an acknowledgement on the file description page to indicate that you've accepted the license shown (and updated the {{ information}} accordingly. If you have other uploads, please consider "claiming" them in a similar manner, You can find a list of files you have created here.
If you don't want to keep your media on English Wikipedia, please nominate it for deletion under Criteria G7 of the Criteria for Speedy deletion ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 13:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Eye accessing cues2.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)