User talk:AliceDeGrey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Accusations of sockpuppetry by bigoted NLP fanatics will require incontrovertible evidence for me to tolerate a sockpuppet label on this pageAliceDeGrey 04:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello I'm Alice
I am NPOV committed.
Here is my email strictly for wiki discussion. alicedegrey@yahoo.co.uk
I do have biases, Mostly towards science and scientific proof
I will accept all views though
Welcome to Wikipedia!
What is your objection to having "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is currently the most widely used definition of NLP is "the study of the structure of subjective experience". " as the first paragraph? --Comaze 05:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
My understanding is that a neutral explanation or definition is preferable. eg a kind of mind programming.
Contents |
[edit] Reversion to GregA contribution
AliceDeGrey, please visit talk page before making reversions. I acknowledge that you may not yet understand wikipedia conventions so I will not shout or anything. best regards, --Comaze 06:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The only reason I felt compelled to help the wikipage was because I am committed to reverting your unjustified deletions of the points of view of other non wikipedians and stated facts. If somebody keeps doing that for months on end, there is absolutely no need to discuss. Unjustified deletion has already been discussed and is simply against NPOV.AliceDeGrey 03:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
You reverted and added this statement "NLP teachings state that the mind can be programmed, and that we all tend to be mis-programmed by negative input in some way. " Do you really think statement is NPOV? --Comaze 03:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I have read this statement myself from NLP books. I will cite the source when I have the time. Until then, I can cite the link.AliceDeGrey 09:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
This statement "NLP teachings state that the mind can be programmed, and that we all tend to be mis-programmed by negative input in some way." is far from scholarly or logical. It sounds more like New Age than NLP. What do you think? --Comaze 09:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
That's not my fault, and its not my view. But it stays in because it is somebody's view.AliceDeGrey 10:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
With regard to the NLP article, maybe check out Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/FT2 for a possible proposed approach to the loggerheads and flames? FT2 08:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Laso 2001 (NCAHF News, July/Aug 2001)
Please stop adding this Laso 2001 reference. Barrett is just a summary of Heap 1988 so only Heap can be cited (under wikipedia policy), I checked the references and provide you with URLs here so you can check for yourself...
- (NCAHF News, July/Aug 2001, cited as Laso 2001)
- Sorting out Junk Science, Raso 2001 (as cited in Laso 2001) - Note that this refernce does NOT mention NLP rendering the NCAHF News (laso 2001) false and invalid.
- (Quackwatch/Barrett 2003 -> cites Heap 1988) - should really only cite the original researcher (the primary source as per wikipedia cite your sources policy)
- Best regards, --Comaze 10:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
No Comaze, there is extra commentary and info in the article. It is a reputable article and was published because the publication itself agrees with the finding. It stays. AliceDeGrey 07:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- I noticed that you have reverted this a few times, saying that you have checked the references. Let's group these together for mediation. see below. --Comaze 10:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation
IMO, this [1] is also very questionable. Firstly Bandler, Grinder and O'Connor has never used the concept of engram, so that is completely misleading. Anyone can submit articles to media13, I think the article was written by one of the editors here to proper up the engram case. The Overdurf ref does not support the attributed statement. Would you like to get mediation on this? --Comaze 10:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. Mediation has already mediated on this point. VoiceOfAll says its fine. AliceDeGrey 06:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitration
AliceDeGrey,
A complaint has been made against you in regard to the Neuro-linguistic programming article, with a request for arbitration. The basis of the case is that you are either a sock puppet, or otherwise involved with, breach of wikipedia policy and disruption to that article.
The request can be found at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
FT2 09:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't surprise me at all. Just tell me how much vandalism I have committed to the article or to other editor's pages! AliceDeGrey 04:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Read the arbcom request carefully, rather than selectively noting only certain aspects of the matter, and you will see that what is clearly written there is accurate: no less, and no more. If you have a reply, I suggest you make it there not here. If it were none the less, to turn out that there is in fact no basis for complaint, that's something that will be determined during arbitration. FT2 13:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, FT2. You have no basis for complaint. If we complained about you adding your unsubstantiated views and biased editing to the article we would also be dismissed by arbitration. AliceDeGrey 06:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitration accepted
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop. Fred Bauder 02:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Personal attacks - AliceDeGrey
I've reported your personal attacks[2] directly to arbcom. --Comaze 05:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No Personal attacks
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.
[edit] Final decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming case. Raul654 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You have been blocked for 24 hours
You have been blocked for 24 hours for this comment. If you want to comment on something we're doing, email us. We've been saying that all along. Just attacking us with no basis in fact is going to get you blocked. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the block Woohookitty. If my indifferent view makes you feel any more impotent, please feel free to block me again, or even indefinitely. Shokran, merci, and thanks again! AliceDeGrey 09:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please stop trying to pick a fight. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More Meatpuppets for Woohookitty
Hello Woohookitty. I accept the permanent ban and understand why meatpuppets are not allowed. I also have uncontrovertable evidence that shows both users Comaze and GregA are meatpuppets, and therefore should be banned permanently, thereby improving the likelihood of fair (and efficient) communication on the article. The evidence involves real names, work institutions and communications and I understand it is inappropriate to post it here. So could you show me where I can post this evidence? AliceDeGrey 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
