Changes

== You have been blocked for an hour ==

== You have been blocked for an hour ==

For [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANeuro-linguistic_programming%2FWorkshop&diff=39715749&oldid=39714558 this comment]. PLEASE be civil. If you have a problem with how we are doing things, then email us privately and we'll deal with it. We're not perfect. But paragraph long attacks against anyone including the mentors will not be tolerated. Heed Camridge's advice. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 09:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

For [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANeuro-linguistic_programming%2FWorkshop&diff=39715749&oldid=39714558 this comment]. PLEASE be civil. If you have a problem with how we are doing things, then email us privately and we'll deal with it. We're not perfect. But paragraph long attacks against anyone including the mentors will not be tolerated. Heed Camridge's advice. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 09:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::I did restore most of what you said. Criticizing us is ok if you feel like we are not doing something correctly. But some of what you said clearly crossed the line into incivility. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 09:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::I did restore most of what you said. Criticizing us is ok if you feel like we are not doing something correctly. But some of what you said clearly crossed the line into incivility. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 09:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::"We're not perfect".  No shit.  You don't even have a grasp of the basic points of contention regarding the NLP article.  All three of you have a set of generic brand tinned responses that you re-heat and serve up as ''haute cuisine''.  Then you have the audacity to become indignant when this is pointed out to you.  Clearly you don't understand the technical matters that are germane to the topic of NLP and are either unwilling or unable to adjudicate over the ''actual'' points of contention between the editors.  In lieu of addressing the real editorial problems you and your buddies have chosen to trade platitudes and cliches and pat each other on the back for your flaccid contributions.  Please. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 10:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::"We're not perfect".  No shit.  You don't even have a grasp of the basic points of contention regarding the NLP article.  All three of you have a set of generic brand tinned responses that you re-heat and serve up as ''haute cuisine''.  Then you have the audacity to become indignant when this is pointed out to you.  Clearly you don't understand the technical matters that are germane to the topic of NLP and are either unwilling or unable to adjudicate over the ''actual'' points of contention between the editors.  In lieu of addressing the real editorial problems you and your buddies have chosen to trade platitudes and cliches and pat each other on the back for your flaccid contributions.  Please. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 10:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 

''Hi Flavius. Actually, I reckon being blocked is a clear triumph of beurocracy over fact. Never mind the beurocracy, and well done:) But I could do with your input on the article sometime, and the current beurocracy seems to be combatting the more irritating nags of the past to some degree. We are going to have to be quite impersonal about things after all. I'm sure the facts will be the winners here. Cheers'' [[User:Camridge|Camridge]] 03:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)  

Hi Flavius. Actually, I reckon being blocked is a clear triumph of beurocracy over fact. Never mind the beurocracy, and well done:) But I could do with your input on the article sometime, and the current beurocracy seems to be combatting the more irritating nags of the past to some degree. We are going to have to be quite impersonal about things after all. I'm sure the facts will be the winners here. Cheers [[User:Camridge|Camridge]] 03:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)  

    

    

  No, the method I favour has not been tried. I did not state that you don't "understand the concepts involved in NLP". I wrote "You don't even have a grasp of the basic points of contention regarding the NLP article" and that is the crux of the problem of your contribution thus far. Furthermore, none of you have grasped my principal position so I'll repeat it. Nowhere have I asked for or sought a statement as to the truth of the matter or "which side is best" nor have I attempted to arrive at the truth on the discussion page. Most -- perhaps all -- of the contention on the NLP article concerns (a) designating the view that NLP "works" as a minority view and disposing of it as per Wikipedia policy on minority views; (b) the representativenss of the authors critical of NLP as representative of the majority (scientific) view; and (c) the citability of sources on both sides of the divide. These are the core issues that produced the edit wars and these are the issues which you are not helping to resolve. All you've managed to do is slow down the edits. We will then arrive at the same old place but it will just take longer. You three need to indepedently investigate these matters and adjudicate on them. I will attempt to distil the debate (and I am happy if parties from either camp correct me). Note that this has nothing to do with righness and wrongness and truth it is do with a whether a situation meets the terms of certain Wikipedia policies.  

No, the method I favour has not been tried. I did not state that you don't "understand the concepts involved in NLP". I wrote "You don't even have a grasp of the basic points of contention regarding the NLP article" and that is the crux of the problem of your contribution thus far. Furthermore, none of you have grasped my principal position so I'll repeat it. Nowhere have I asked for or sought a statement as to the truth of the matter or "which side is best" nor have I attempted to arrive at the truth on the discussion page. Most -- perhaps all -- of the contention on the NLP article concerns (a) designating the view that NLP "works" as a minority view and disposing of it as per Wikipedia policy on minority views; (b) the representativenss of the authors critical of NLP as representative of the majority (scientific) view; and (c) the citability of sources on both sides of the divide. These are the core issues that produced the edit wars and these are the issues which you are not helping to resolve. All you've managed to do is slow down the edits. We will then arrive at the same old place but it will just take longer. You three need to indepedently investigate these matters and adjudicate on them. I will attempt to distil the debate (and I am happy if parties from either camp correct me). Note that this has nothing to do with righness and wrongness and truth it is do with a whether a situation meets the terms of certain Wikipedia policies.  

   '''Contra NLP'''  

   '''Contra NLP'''  

   #The view that NLP is efficacious and theoretically sound is a minority view not unlike "flat earth" theory. Hence it should be treated in the NLP article and in Wikipedia generally as a minority view.   

   #The view that NLP is efficacious and theoretically sound is a minority view not unlike "flat earth" theory. Hence it should be treated in the NLP article and in Wikipedia generally as a minority view.   

   #The pro-NLP editors argue that the scathing critiques (eg. from Leelt, Drenth, Carroll, Eisner, Singer) are not majority representative views but are instead the views of a minority of extremists.  

   #The pro-NLP editors argue that the scathing critiques (eg. from Leelt, Drenth, Carroll, Eisner, Singer) are not majority representative views but are instead the views of a minority of extremists.  

    

    

   The extensive, expansive and heated discussion occured because these psoitions were argued for by each side in an attempt to establish the righness of their position regarding the representativess and authority of the sources ''not the righness or wrongness of NLP''. The bulk of the conflict turns around the application [[WP:NPOVUW]], NPOV:Pseudoscience, and NPOV:Giving "equal validity". The ''real'' issues have not been addressed by any mediators, arbitrarors and mentors and addressing these would not be "more of the same". It is well within your remit to adjudicate these matters. Have I explained myself clearly? Do you understand? [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)  

   The extensive, expansive and heated discussion occured because these psoitions were argued for by each side in an attempt to establish the righness of their position regarding the representativess and authority of the sources ''not the righness or wrongness of NLP''. The bulk of the conflict turns around the application [[WP:NPOVUW]], NPOV:Pseudoscience, and NPOV:Giving "equal validity". The ''real'' issues have not been addressed by any mediators, arbitrarors and mentors and addressing these would not be "more of the same". It is well within your remit to adjudicate these matters. Have I explained myself clearly? Do you understand? [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=39828314]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=41131026

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=41131026

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=41269997

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=41269997

== You have been blocked for 24 hours ==  

== You have been blocked for 24 hours ==  

  For [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=41168107 this]. If calling someone a "lapdog" isn't uncivil, I don't think anything is. Please stop. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 01:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)  For [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=41168107 this]. If calling someone a "lapdog" isn't uncivil, I don't think anything is. Please stop. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 01:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)  

  For [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=41168107 this]. If calling someone a "lapdog" isn't uncivil, I don't think anything is. Please stop. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 01:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)  For [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=41168107 this]. If calling someone a "lapdog" isn't uncivil, I don't think anything is. Please stop. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 01:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)