Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Hong Kong University Skeptics - Revision history

MyWikiBiz: Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Hong Kong University Sceptics moved to Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Hong Kong University Skeptics: The most common spelling is "Skeptics", with a "k".

2008-07-26T21:57:27Z

Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Hong Kong University Sceptics moved to Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Hong Kong University Skeptics: The most common spelling is "Skeptics", with a "k".

Ockham at 08:26, 26 July 2008

2008-07-26T08:26:21Z

Ockham at 08:25, 26 July 2008

2008-07-26T08:25:06Z

Ockham: /* NLP has the same problem as the 'round earth theory' had a few hundred years ago */

2008-07-26T08:16:35Z

NLP has the same problem as the 'round earth theory' had a few hundred years ago

Ockham: /* Helen is indefinitely blocked */

2008-07-26T08:15:35Z

Helen is indefinitely blocked

Ockham: /* Helen is indefinitely blocked */

2008-07-26T08:14:20Z

Helen is indefinitely blocked

Ockham: /* Helen is indefinitely blocked */

2008-07-26T08:13:48Z

Helen is indefinitely blocked

Ockham: /* Helen Wu objects: "You are an NLP follower" */

2008-07-26T08:13:28Z

Helen Wu objects: "You are an NLP follower"

Ockham: /* FT2 explains why the sceptics club was banned */

2008-07-26T08:13:14Z

FT2 explains why the sceptics club was banned

Ockham: /* Don't you try to treat me like a small asian woman */

2008-07-26T08:11:52Z

Don't you try to treat me like a small asian woman

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 You don't get what's happening here. We want critics. We just don't want more meatpuppets that have come here via the University of Hong Kong skeptics club. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(meow)]]</sup> 10:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=57682854&oldid=57681161]
-The whole purpose of blocking and everything else we do here is to create a good Wikipedia article and to keep the peace in this discussion. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC) [from workshop page]
+The whole purpose of blocking and everything else we do here is to create a good Wikipedia article and to keep the peace in this discussion. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/Workshopgeneral Feb 2006 NLP workshop]
 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&diff=prev&oldid=57142176

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:25, 26 July 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	NLP talk page June 2006 - comment on HKUS [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=60465256#Comment_to_sceptics_society_.28if_any_others_are_asking.29]		NLP talk page June 2006 - comment on HKUS [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=60465256#Comment_to_sceptics_society_.28if_any_others_are_asking.29]

		+
		+	You don't get what's happening here. We want critics. We just don't want more meatpuppets that have come here via the University of Hong Kong skeptics club. --[[User:Woohookitty\|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty\|(meow)]]</sup> 10:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=57682854&oldid=57681161]
		+
		+	The whole purpose of blocking and everything else we do here is to create a good Wikipedia article and to keep the peace in this discussion. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC) [from workshop page]

	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&diff=prev&oldid=57142176		http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&diff=prev&oldid=57142176

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 == NLP has the same problem as the 'round earth theory' had a few hundred years ago==
-'''Focus on objectivity'''
+:'' '''Focus on objectivity'''
-Psychology is the most subjective of all sciences and therefore I ask everyone to keep an open mind towards NLP as a science, as the aim of Wikipedia should be to provide neutral and objective information rather than articles based on bigotry and partisanship.
+:'' NLP is the antithesis of traditional psychology (modeling extreme cases of mental illness and searching for causation) as NLP models people with the ability to do something extremely well in order to map how such 'healthy thinking' can be reproduced by other people. Therefore, supporters of traditional psychology have a serious conflict of interests that makes it impossible for them to contribute without bigotry or partisanship in some form or another. However, while traditionalists may be incompetent in contributing to writing an objective and informative article about NLP, they are more than qualified to review the text to ensure the neutrality of the wordings.''
-NLP is the antithesis of traditional psychology (modeling extreme cases of mental illness and searching for causation) as NLP models people with the ability to do something extremely well in order to map how such 'healthy thinking' can be reproduced by other people. Therefore, supporters of traditional psychology have a serious conflict of interests that makes it impossible for them to contribute without bigotry or partisanship in some form or another. However, while traditionalists may be incompetent in contributing to writing an objective and informative article about NLP, they are more than qualified to review the text to ensure the neutrality of the wordings.
+:'' I know that there has been a lot of sabotage on the NLP page, but more or less anal argumentation against NLP by supporters of conventional psychology should be considered destructive sabotage as well. The discussion about whether NLP should be recognized as science or not belongs in foot note form only, as everything beyond "NLP has been criticized for lack of merits and some supporters of traditional psychology refuse to recognize NLP as science" is completely useless for the Wikipedia visitor who is searching for objective information about NLP and not intellectual masturbation by the academia.''
-I know that there has been a lot of sabotage on the NLP page, but more or less anal argumentation against NLP by supporters of conventional psychology should be considered destructive sabotage as well. The discussion about whether NLP should be recognized as science or not belongs in foot note form only, as everything beyond "NLP has been criticized for lack of merits and some supporters of traditional psychology refuse to recognize NLP as science" is completely useless for the Wikipedia visitor who is searching for objective information about NLP and not intellectual masturbation by the academia.
+:'' NLP has the same problem as the 'round earth theory' had a few hundred years ago; it is a new approach that will never get a fair peer review, because there is no real peer reviewers as long as the already recognized scientific peer is entrenched with bigotry and partisanship to support the exact opposite thesis. In order of relevance, a neutral article about NLP should contain points about a) WHAT is NLP, b) HOW does NLP theory differ from traditional psychological theory, and c) is NLP RECOGNIZED as a cognitive science. The last point is the closest to irrelevant and please note that it asks whether NLP is recognized as science, not whether it is a science. Sorry for the long rant, but I just wanted to contribute with my view on how the new NLP article can be better structured. Thomas ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=57440064&oldid=57439994]
 == Now the 'anti' side has been completely banned (6 June) ==

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 == Helen is indefinitely blocked ==
-:''[edit] You have been blocked indefinitely.  You know, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Honestly, I could've blocked you right away for being a meatpuppet. But. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But that post of yours might be the most incivil thing I've read since I became a mentor. We are going to block every sock or meatpuppet of Headley, et all. I was trying to be nice and explain the meatpuppet policy to you. The thing is, I welcome an anti-NLP voice on the article. I always have. But whoever that is has to follow our policies. And Headley et all were either incivil or they were meatpuppets of each other. This isn't censorship. It's enforcing our policies and the arbcom decision''. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Helen_Wu]
+:''[edit] You have been blocked indefinitely.  You know, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Honestly, I could've blocked you right away for being a meatpuppet. But. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&diff=prev&oldid=57142176 that post] of yours [complaining about censorship] might be the most incivil thing I've read since I became a mentor. We are going to block every sock or meatpuppet of Headley, et all. I was trying to be nice and explain the meatpuppet policy to you. The thing is, I welcome an anti-NLP voice on the article. I always have. But whoever that is has to follow our policies. And Headley et all were either incivil or they were meatpuppets of each other. This isn't censorship. It's enforcing our policies and the arbcom decision''. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Helen_Wu]
 == NLP has the same problem as the 'round earth theory' had a few hundred years ago==

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 == Helen is indefinitely blocked ==
-:''[edit] You have been blocked indefinitely
+:''[edit] You have been blocked indefinitely.  You know, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Honestly, I could've blocked you right away for being a meatpuppet. But. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But that post of yours might be the most incivil thing I've read since I became a mentor. We are going to block every sock or meatpuppet of Headley, et all. I was trying to be nice and explain the meatpuppet policy to you. The thing is, I welcome an anti-NLP voice on the article. I always have. But whoever that is has to follow our policies. And Headley et all were either incivil or they were meatpuppets of each other. This isn't censorship. It's enforcing our policies and the arbcom decision''. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Helen_Wu]
 == NLP has the same problem as the 'round earth theory' had a few hundred years ago==

← Older revision	Revision as of 21:57, 26 July 2008
(No difference)

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 You know, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Honestly, I could've blocked you right away for being a meatpuppet. But. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But that post of yours might be the most incivil thing I've read since I became a mentor. We are going to block every sock or meatpuppet of Headley, et all. I was trying to be nice and explain the meatpuppet policy to you. The thing is, I welcome an anti-NLP voice on the article. I always have. But whoever that is has to follow our policies. And Headley et all were either incivil or they were meatpuppets of each other. This isn't censorship. It's enforcing our policies and the arbcom decision''. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
-I asked Anteus a question because I know he is a neutral editor. You butt in and warn me off. You are incivil. I did not even try to edit on the NLP articles. You and FT2 are feel guilty and you show it with your insecure bans excuses. Helen Wu 09:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
+I asked Anteus a question because I know he is a neutral editor. You butt in and warn me off. You are incivil. I did not even try to edit on the NLP articles. You and FT2 are feel guilty and you show it with your insecure bans excuses. Helen Wu 09:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Helen_Wu]
 == NLP has the same problem as the 'round earth theory' had a few hundred years ago==

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 == Helen Wu objects: "You are an NLP follower" ==
-:''FT2 I have seen your edits. You are an NLP follower. You are worse than Woohokitty. You both should be nowhere near the NLP article. FT2, you and Comaze should be banned like Terryeo for making hundreds of hours of extra work and sly conflict. Your excuses are extreme and one sided. The NLP followers obviously did lots of "warfare", vandalism, invention of false facts, deletion of valid sourced material, persistent cognitive inability to comprehend WP:NPOV and a dozen other standards. You are one of them. Tell me where in this version of the article [2] there is any false facts, vandalism or deletion of valid source material? You are trying to delete it yourself and vandalism is what the NLP followers do when they get frustrated with the facts that don’t promote NLP. You are also as unconvincing as Woohokitty. I didn’t ask for your desperate one sided excuses or threats. You certainly don’t want me editing on the NLP article. That is because you are an NLP follower''. Helen Wu 04:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
+:''FT2 I have seen your edits. You are an NLP follower. You are worse than Woohokitty. You both should be nowhere near the NLP article. FT2, you and Comaze should be banned like Terryeo for making hundreds of hours of extra work and sly conflict. Your excuses are extreme and one sided. The NLP followers obviously did lots of "warfare", vandalism, invention of false facts, deletion of valid sourced material, persistent cognitive inability to comprehend WP:NPOV and a dozen other standards. You are one of them. Tell me where in this version of the article [2] there is any false facts, vandalism or deletion of valid source material? You are trying to delete it yourself and vandalism is what the NLP followers do when they get frustrated with the facts that don’t promote NLP. You are also as unconvincing as Woohokitty. I didn’t ask for your desperate one sided excuses or threats. You certainly don’t want me editing on the NLP article. That is because you are an NLP follower''. Helen Wu 04:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Helen_Wu]
 == FT2 replies ==

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 :''The users named have been blocked not because of a sudden desire by a number of editors and mediators (most of whom had no prior interest in NLP) to take a side. In fact they were not formally removed until the mediators tired of their knowing improper conduct, after many months of work by 3rd parties who feel their time was wasted. That's how life goes: - in a communal work, no individual is indispensible, and those who do not learn, tend to ultimately discover this. I'm told it's a bit of a shock. They were removed because, simply put, they did not learn how to write in accordance with an encyclopedic style. they were removed for "warfare", vandalism, invention of false facts, deletion of valid sourced material, persistent cognitive inability to comprehend WP:NPOV and a dozen other standards, breaches of sockpuppet policy first notified to them over 8 months ago and not rectified in that time, running of one of the largest sockpuppet/meatpuppet groups of 2005 (WP:SOCK refers), and virulent personal attacks. Most of these things had little to do with the content they were writing. ''
-:''(Incidentally, several of them were the same individual, not just the same computer. That's been confirmed a number of ways. No I don't plan to clarify, just to say, "do you think this is the first time it's happened here"? Again, ask Headley)  Anyhow, it's done. This is written, on the off chance there are genuine individuals who wonder why the bans happened. Now you know''. FT2 (Talk) 13:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
+:''(Incidentally, several of them were the same individual, not just the same computer. That's been confirmed a number of ways. No I don't plan to clarify, just to say, "do you think this is the first time it's happened here"? Again, ask Headley)  Anyhow, it's done. This is written, on the off chance there are genuine individuals who wonder why the bans happened. Now you know''. FT2 (Talk) 13:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Helen_Wu]
 == Helen Wu objects: "You are an NLP follower" ==

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 == Don't you try to treat me like a small asian woman ==
-Don't you try to treat me like a small asian woman. Don't try to lie to me. You tell me how was the article influenced? Was it by the editors or by the facts? The science editors were oftentimes lesser than the antiscience editors. But the science was still there. The influence was facts only. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=56475097] NLP followers tried to influence with pressure constantly. Disruptive is when an antiscience editor makes lots of questions to the science ones to waste time or cause conflict. You banning science editors may not be censorship but it definitely will happen to lead to censorship. I know a fact that the science editors were not all from the same university. So don’t give me your lie. You failed to support the facts, and now the censorship is going to happen. If I try to edit on the NLP article, then how do I control other editors from Hong Kong? I suggest something, then two more suggest, then I am banned? You suggested a stupid idea. Stop with your excuses. You convince nobody. You should have your next job to ban all critical realist editors on the scientology article to give the scientologists a chance to do their promoting and cover ups. Then you give your same stupid excuses. You warned me off, and I will wait till other non-Hong Kong editors say how stupid and confusing your NLP enhanced article is. Then I'll give full support with all the sources the NLP followers deleted. In the meantime just take your excuses somewhere else and let me edit other articles. [[User:Helen Wu|Helen Wu]] 04:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
+:''Don't you try to treat me like a small asian woman. Don't try to lie to me. You tell me how was the article influenced? Was it by the editors or by the facts? The science editors were oftentimes lesser than the antiscience editors. But the science was still there. The influence was facts only. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=56475097] NLP followers tried to influence with pressure constantly. Disruptive is when an antiscience editor makes lots of questions to the science ones to waste time or cause conflict. You banning science editors may not be censorship but it definitely will happen to lead to censorship. I know a fact that the science editors were not all from the same university. So don’t give me your lie. You failed to support the facts, and now the censorship is going to happen. If I try to edit on the NLP article, then how do I control other editors from Hong Kong? I suggest something, then two more suggest, then I am banned? You suggested a stupid idea. Stop with your excuses. You convince nobody. You should have your next job to ban all critical realist editors on the scientology article to give the scientologists a chance to do their promoting and cover ups. Then you give your same stupid excuses. You warned me off, and I will wait till other non-Hong Kong editors say how stupid and confusing your NLP enhanced article is. Then I'll give full support with all the sources the NLP followers deleted. In the meantime just take your excuses somewhere else and let me edit other articles''. [[User:Helen Wu|Helen Wu]] 04:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Helen_Wu&diff=prev&oldid=57303943]
 == Helen is indefinitely blocked ==