672:
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
434:
block. GregA could also be accused of continued sarcasm, and unconstructive and excessive objection, and obsessive editing. I believe the block history in general has been very one sided. I understand that it may be motivated by desperation to speed up progress, but I really think that discussion has been extremely constructive already. Many facts have been civilly presented, and with support from the literature, and NLPers objections to that literature have shown quite clearly the validity of the views of scientists and sociologists (that NLP is a cult). ATB.
415:
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.
317:
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.
223:
419:
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.
671:
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
418:
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
414:
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
316:
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.
443:
You have been blocked again, DaveRight. This time for 24 hours. There is so much incivility and not assuming good faith in your post that I can't even count it all. Calling NLPers objections "unreasonable". Accusing them of censorship. Accusing them of covering up. Claiming that katefan is putting
186:
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
707:
You never heard of a university coffee shop? Well, it doesn't matter. I believe the only solution here is for you to allow the NLP advocates to censor, whitewash, and confuse as much as they like (as you seem to have been encouraging), for a few days, a week, or maybe even a month, and then to
433:
Mmm! I also reckon Dave hasn't cast any aspersions, and his assumption of good faith has been unshaken. I'd also like to point out that
Akulkis has cast many aspersions, and has in general been extremely foul in his incivility and attacks upon non-NLPers. He doesn't seem to have ever earned a
568:
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
580:
I assume you mean, "NLP practitioners attempt to indentify the 'difference that makes the difference' between the average and top performers in the same field of expertise" ? "difference that makes the difference" is from
Gregory Bateson.
500:
Hi Dave. Don't expect fairness or balance. Clearly we are not here to follow the example of the mentors. In fact, you need to seriously change the meaning of the term "mentor" if you want to continue protecting the article. ATB.
553:
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.
277:
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.
113:
109:
202:
105:
682:
Interesting. You explain your IP's similarities by saying you all three "work in the same institution," yet above you said you only edit through public computers. I guess you all three work together,
708:
change all their moneygrabbing flimflam back to reality. I can get on with some uninterrupted research for a while. Suits me, and I'm sure other editors here will be just as happy with that. Cheers
657:
I have no idea if David Gerard would share the information with you but being blocked will not stop you from emailing him. Generally though, checkuser is about as foolproof as it gets on here. --
543:
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
297:
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.
337:
From a neuroscience perspective, there is a difference. Scientists use the scientific definition of engram, and pseudoscientists use the scientology/dianetics version.
248:
615:
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. --
263:
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.
444:
their "line" up on swish against consensus. The block was originally 12 but this is such a major violation that I made it 24. I'd suggest you stop. --
65:
49:
351:
I gave some observations about your change proposal on the NLP workshop page. Take a look, give it some thought and respond. Thanks. --
25:
to Knowledge! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
251:
and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, DaveRight says, "Only with regard to throwing the book at Comaze and other miscreants."
69:
327:
Sorry, I didn't mean to leave you 2, "hi guy" messages, but hit a key by mistake and left you more than I meant to. Have fun.
393:
Don't cast aspersions on other peoples' motives or denigrate their opinions simply because they differ from yours. Remember to
686:
all happen to edit the NLP workshop page from the same coffee shop(s)? A bit too convenient. Sorry, doesn't wash with me. ·
68:
on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
471:
Makes no difference to me Woohookitty. I know how things stand. You can ban me if you like. My research will continue.
230:
34:
22:
637:
A checkuser was run on the specific IP addresses used by these various accounts; all were matches for one another, see
140:
531:
I just blocked Camridge for 24 hours for his comments here. Either respect us or go find something else to do. --
244:
54:
363:
And sorry for taking so long. You had some good ideas, btw. Making the language simpler is a very good goal. --
80:
29:
288:
61:
243:, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be
188:
709:
673:
628:
595:
570:
544:
522:
472:
420:
376:
338:
298:
264:
173:
126:
89:
153:
328:
318:
694:
648:
405:
44:
76:
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
658:
616:
532:
445:
364:
352:
117:
162:
148:
391:
Just the same pseudoscientific objections. We could present another set of NLP excuses.
79:
That was a canned welcome speech; I hope the rest of your time on WP is more enjoyable.
687:
641:
555:
502:
435:
398:
394:
215:
144:
39:
206:
627:
Please show evidence. I'm a coffee shop editor. I use public computers only.
582:
255:
236:
There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.
254:
Please remove this personal attack from the NLP discussion page. regards, --
389:
I've blocked you for 3 hours for your most recent comment, which included:
114:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop
110:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Evidence
712:
698:
676:
663:
652:
631:
621:
598:
585:
573:
558:
547:
537:
525:
505:
475:
450:
438:
423:
409:
379:
369:
357:
341:
331:
321:
301:
267:
258:
209:
191:
176:
167:
129:
120:
92:
83:
222:
375:
Thanks much, Woohookitty. I'll post up a few changes. Cheers
203:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming
106:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming
201:
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the
221:
172:
You must be kidding Mysekurity, I just woke up! Cheers
638:
612:
252:
397:. Everyone is welcome to contribute at Knowledge. ·
88:I'll try to make it as colourful as wikipedia.
143:. Please cease further reverts or you may be
8:
108:has been accepted. Please place evidence at
60:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
287:
112:. Proposals and comments may be made at
7:
564:difference that makes the difference
139:You are in danger of violating the
72:, ask me on my talk page, or place
607:You have been blocked indefinitely
14:
70:Knowledge:Where to ask a question
290:File:Confederate Battle Flag.svg
187:civility on that page. Thanks -
1:
380:01:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
370:07:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
358:07:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
342:03:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
332:08:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
322:08:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
294:05:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
130:03:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
121:02:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
93:06:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
30:The five pillars of Knowledge
594:Sure, something like that.
302:01:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
268:04:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
259:10:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
210:01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
192:04:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
177:03:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
168:04:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
84:02:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
50:How to write a great article
731:
713:04:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
699:03:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
677:03:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
664:02:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
653:02:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
632:02:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
622:20:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
559:04:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
548:02:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
538:15:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
526:09:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
506:03:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
476:02:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
451:11:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
439:07:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
424:06:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
410:03:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
125:Sure thing Fred, Will do!
599:06:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
586:02:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
574:01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
247:for disruption. Please
229:Please see Knowledge's
147:from further editing. -
521:Well said, Camridge!
226:
21:Hello, DaveRight, and
225:
101:Arbitration accepted
231:no personal attacks
227:
35:How to edit a page
697:
651:
408:
395:assume good faith
141:three revert rule
722:
693:
647:
404:
293:
291:
285:
282:
273:Structure Occult
238:
165:
158:
151:
75:
730:
729:
725:
724:
723:
721:
720:
719:
609:
566:
387:
349:
314:
309:
289:
283:
280:
275:
234:
220:
199:
189:KillerChihuahua
184:
163:
156:
149:
137:
103:
73:
55:Manual of Style
12:
11:
5:
728:
726:
718:
717:
716:
715:
702:
701:
669:
668:
667:
666:
626:
608:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
589:
588:
565:
562:
552:
541:
540:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
386:
383:
373:
372:
348:
345:
335:
334:
313:
310:
308:
305:
274:
271:
219:
213:
198:
197:Final decision
195:
183:
180:
136:
133:
102:
99:
97:
66:sign your name
58:
57:
52:
47:
42:
37:
32:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
727:
714:
711:
706:
705:
704:
703:
700:
696:
691:
690:
685:
681:
680:
679:
678:
675:
665:
662:
661:
656:
655:
654:
650:
645:
644:
639:
636:
635:
634:
633:
630:
624:
623:
620:
619:
614:
606:
600:
597:
593:
592:
591:
590:
587:
584:
579:
578:
577:
575:
572:
563:
561:
560:
557:
550:
549:
546:
539:
536:
535:
530:
529:
528:
527:
524:
507:
504:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
477:
474:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
452:
449:
448:
442:
441:
440:
437:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
422:
416:
412:
411:
407:
402:
401:
396:
392:
384:
382:
381:
378:
371:
368:
367:
362:
361:
360:
359:
356:
355:
346:
344:
343:
340:
333:
330:
326:
325:
324:
323:
320:
311:
306:
304:
303:
300:
295:
292:
286:
272:
270:
269:
266:
261:
260:
257:
253:
250:
246:
242:
237:
232:
224:
217:
214:
212:
211:
208:
204:
196:
194:
193:
190:
181:
179:
178:
175:
170:
169:
166:
161:
160:
159:
152:
146:
142:
134:
132:
131:
128:
123:
122:
119:
115:
111:
107:
100:
98:
95:
94:
91:
86:
85:
82:
77:
71:
67:
63:
56:
53:
51:
48:
46:
43:
41:
38:
36:
33:
31:
28:
27:
26:
24:
19:
18:
688:
683:
670:
659:
642:
625:
617:
611:It has been
610:
567:
551:
542:
533:
520:
446:
417:
413:
399:
390:
388:
374:
365:
353:
350:
336:
315:
296:
279:
276:
262:
240:
235:
228:
200:
185:
171:
155:
154:
138:
124:
104:
96:
87:
78:
59:
20:
16:
15:
660:Woohookitty
618:Woohookitty
534:Woohookitty
447:Woohookitty
366:Woohookitty
354:Woohookitty
239:Comment on
118:Fred Bauder
74:{{helpme}}
62:Wikipedian
40:Help pages
710:DaveRight
674:DaveRight
629:DaveRight
596:DaveRight
571:DaveRight
545:DaveRight
523:DaveRight
473:DaveRight
421:DaveRight
377:DaveRight
339:DaveRight
299:DaveRight
265:DaveRight
249:stay cool
174:DaveRight
127:DaveRight
90:DaveRight
64:! Please
689:Katefan0
643:Katefan0
556:Camridge
503:Camridge
436:Camridge
400:Katefan0
233:policy:
45:Tutorial
17:Welcome!
583:-=-C-=-
385:Blocked
329:Terryeo
319:Terryeo
245:blocked
241:content
218:warning
207:Raul654
145:blocked
23:welcome
613:proven
312:Hi guy
307:Hi guy
256:Comaze
216:WP:NPA
205:case.
164:kurity
284:Virus
695:poll
649:poll
640:. ·
406:poll
684:and
347:NLP
182:NPA
150:Mys
135:3RR
581:--
576:"
116:.
81:DS
692:/
646:/
403:/
281:j
157:e
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.