User talk:Fainites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Fainites, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Brother Flounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 21:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

It's not neccessary to sign (~~~~) your edit summaries, as your username is automatically recorded in the page history. Signatures are used for talk pages. -- Brother Flounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 21:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLP: Non-newbie behaviour

Hi Fainites, welcome to the project. I notice you've dived right into the NLP article. Usually only sockpuppets of Headleydown or AlanBarnet do that on Wikipedia so it would be worthwhile letting everyone on the article know a little about yourself. I've been editing the article for some months anonymously and before that as a registered user, so I'm interested in new editors. Comaze, a regular editor here for several years knows me through my edits. Unfortunately things have been pretty heated on that article in the past so people have their radars on high alert for mischievious behaviour, like unecessary grammar fixes and subtle questions that step around precise issues. Please be assured I find merit in many of your edits, however usually it takes months before an editor learns the subtleties of questioning issues in a precisely inoffensive and productive way; whereas you appear to already have this skill finely honed. I compliment you on this. Headleydown had multiple personas on Wikipedia so, like I said, people are on high alert for behaviour that's 'not quite right'. Looking forward to more of your edits. All the best, hoping you'll please share something of yourself. Anon. 58.179.176.92 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. 202.67.113.200 22:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with 58.179.176.92. I really appreciate your contributions; especially the grammar corrections. I do try ;) --Comaze 10:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for quotes

Hello Fainites. If you have anything specific that you wish me to doublecheck, then post it on my talkpage and I will see if I can. But I do believe that with so many anonymous and odd edits going undiscussed on the NLP article, even verbatim quotes will be misplaced. It does seem to me that the anonymous editors are sockpuppets of Comaze. I would rather edit other articles where this problem is not occurring. Harristweed 07:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Fainites. Here is the quote in full from Sharpley 87:

The most conclusive sentence (about conclusions) in that section you presented is that “There are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by those data”

Then he says “On the other hand, Einspruch and Forman (1985) implied that NLP is far more complex than presumed by researchers, and thus, the data are not true evaluations of NLP. Perhaps this is so, and perhaps NLP procedures are not amenable to research evaluation. This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness for counseling practice. Rather it puts it in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field. Not every therapy has to undergo the rigorous testing that is characteristic of the more behavioural approaches to counseling to be of use to the therapeutic community, but failure to produce data that support a particular theory from controlled studies does relegate that theory to questionable status in terms of professional accountability”

Right at the end of the article the sentences read:

“Elich et al referred to NLP as a psychological fad, and they may well have been correct. Certainly research data do not support the rather extreme claims that proponents of NLP have made as to the validity of its principles or the novelty of its procedures.”

I think the only thing to do with this is rely on what the other researchers (eg Devilly, Eisner and so on) say about Sharpley. Also, if NLP is actually mentioned in the Norcross research that AB presented then that may help as it is even more recent regarding acceptance by clinicians. Harristweed 09:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email files

Hi Fainites and Harris. I'm pretty much at the end of the tether with the NLP article. All rushed edits and no real discussion or verification. I have a few core files though. If you want to email me (using the email user tab on the side of my talkpage) I can reply with those files attached. Better still - add your email to your preferences and I can send them to you myself. This article will only be sorted out with solid sources. AlanBarnet 08:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiprocess

I'm off to sleep. Pleasure working with you. Great wikiprocess! 58.178.199.62 17:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please take care

Hi fainites. In this diff you deleted three tags without addressing the issues, and the edit summary didn't reflect that you had done so. Please take care. 58.178.199.62 22:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't recall deliberately deleting any tags. I was dealing with Sharpley and Langone. I may have accidently deleted one in those bits but the ^{[attribution needed]} and ^{[citation needed]} tag are a mystery. That edit also shows me deleting my own Langone edit! Either I'm even more computer illiterate than I thought or there really is a conspiracy! Fainites 23:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC) moved here from anonymous talk page

All good. Those two (who) and (fact) tags are a mystery to me also. They're from user 68. Yeah I know, I saw you deleted your edit but it still appears in the article, go figure. Take care. 58.178.199.62 23:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems you accidentally reverted the article to an earlier version. I hope I've fixed everything now. A couple of editing tips you may appreciate: - Open multiple windows in your browser (you probably already do this). In Firefox, hold ctrl as you click a link to open it in the background. - Avoid the four tildas in your edit summary, they aren't needed there, and they will mess up peoples ability to copy and paste from the page history. - Have a look at WP:REF. It might help with the mistakes you've been making with ref tags. Take care. 58.178.199.62 00:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I've fixed that reference. It didn't like the apostrophe in the name field. --Comaze 09:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need a hand?

Do you want me to help restore the article? Or are you still working on it? Sorry about making the incomprehensible changes today. --Comaze 12:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Now it is taking shape. :) I was watching the changes. I'll check back later --Comaze 12:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC) It is much easier to follow now, thank you. --Comaze 12:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC) I need to think about where to put that study. It is a PhD dissertation - does it pass the standards for sources? --Comaze 13:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the studies focus on certain models. It could be submodalities, PRS or meta model. I don't know where that study should go. I initially wanted it in with the model it was testing. That way there would be a description of the model followed by a critique and third party views. But that does not really suit the current article structure. Keep it in the MH section for now and I'll sleep on it :) --Comaze 13:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The concepts and methods section is currently too complicated and I agree with you that the sections need some work. I'm going to take a look at some other articles to see what they do. --Comaze 12:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Including all relevant views

Hi Fainites. Further to my reiteration of admin's assessment - I believe we can cooperate more closely with each other and more also with admin. I am working reasonably with admin assessments as you can partly see through my notifications of promoter abuse on the ANI article [1]. There are clearly problems with people obscuring views here. Whether you call it cover up – hiding – distorting - minimizing – its all the same and key views should not be obscured and I have presented the most obvious solution to the problem - I’ve been working on getting the lead section into shape by presenting the key issues in proper context and proportion. Unfortunately – Comaze (who's situation I have reiterated from the assessment of admin [2]) has been persistently creating an unrepresentative lead section by making sure the majority of key critical issues are not presented there at all. Lead sections should have a summary form opening that include the main issues and the rest of the lead should provide context and criticism. I don’t know exactly how many times Comaze and other anon IPs have covered up that information by deleting it from the lead section – but it they are doing it persistently – and they are giving the most unacceptable excuses (for example - its been covered in the article already). It doesn’t matter if its been covered– the main point of the lead is to show with appropriate citations – the main issues of the article – so of course it will be present in the article.

There are pressing problems that need to be sorted out and I am working on solving them to create a properly balanced NPOV article. I’ve worked here without making any personal attacks – I’ve cooperated with admin – and presented according to NPOV policy despite the persistent deletion of key views from the lead section. This will overcome a lot of the promotional obscuring of facts that admin have pointed out as being a problem and help to present a balanced article [3][4]. AlanBarnet 09:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree.Fainites 11:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Announcement

This new announcement refers to you. Take care. 58.179.166.57 01:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please be civil. Civility is important for constructive editing

Hello Fainites. You posted this message on my user page [5] ("And if you believe that, you'll believe anything.Fainites 12:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)"). The NLP article is in dire need of editors to assume good faith and to try to get along. Please act in the spirit of Wikipedia. Thank you. AlanBarnet 11:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who deliberately misquotes sources and fakes citations cannot expect other editors to assume good faith. Sugary blandishments are wasted.Fainites 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Fainites. There is no compelling evidence of your allegations - therefore your accusations are uncivil and disruptive. I have made repeat appeals on ANI for any of the hundreds of admin to put me straigh if I have done anything wrong. The only responses I have had are from Guy verifying my assessments and Woohookitty encouraging me to keep working towards his previous recommendations on the NLP article.

Currently (according to WP:COI and WP:OWN guidelines and ANI assessments) you seem to be working within a dominating and dismissive group that has strong WP:COI issues. As an amicable and constructive long term solution I'm making persistent efforts to create an atmosphere where editors of different views can get along. I believe the sooner you accept the situation and try to get along - the sooner admin will see you as reforming to constructive status. Your cooperation will be beneficial for all. Thank you. AlanBarnet 07:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It won't work. You've displayed your true colours and burned your boats. As for admin, they haven't stopped the rest of us moving your wikilawyering to another page or ignoring it altogether. As for Woohookitty's encouragement, you were taking credit for other peoples work which Woohookitty would not be expected to realise unless he waded through hundreds of diffs. The other editors all know it though. As for me, you know very well I am a sceptic, and, for what it's worth, have little doubt personally that NLP is a pseudoscience. But you don't care do you? It's all just obsessive games to you isn't it?. Get a life! Anyway, I've said what I think often enough. I don't wish to have any more communication with you. Goodbye.Fainites 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Fainites. It is working. I am openly showing my true colours on ANI notices and administrators such as SlimVirgin [6] and Woohookitty [7] indicate that my efforts to solve problems on Wikipedia have been constructive. I've been asking for long term scrutiny. I am far from boat burning. I've been calmly asking for the group to get along. The ANI notices that I have made are constructive because they have added the scrutiny of administrators on an article where a group with known COI issues seems to be dominating. The group seems to me to be using the same uncivil tactics and language as yourself and may be considered meatpuppets in the event of any voting (counted as one).

Have a go at editing on other articles to help you compare situations. This NLP article seems to be a special case. The argumentative debate tone and lack of summarized criticism shows that there are some serious problems to sort out here long term. Presently the dominating group is looking more troublesome in Wikipedia terms than ever. Therefore I will be collecting specific instances of incivility and unconstructive behaviour and I request again for you to be civil.

Your (and my own) own opinion of NLP is irrelevant to editing. Its your actions that count. Its your actions that can be collected in diffs as evidence. If you work towards presenting the article in summarized form without any information suppression and without any more incivil dissmissive marginalization of constructive discussion then perhaps I will have something positive to report in the next ANI notice. AlanBarnet 04:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. You've been blocked. How frightfully uncivil. Fainites 14:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brit spelling

Thanks for picking up my error on the Brit spelling of behaviour in that quote. 203.212.143.5 21:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh

I will leave a note on Alan's page. I do not "support" anyone in that discussion. Never have. Thanks for letting me know. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 01:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NLP

Okay, finished!

Sorry :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] title

I've corrected it. Feel free to do whatever you like with it. You could change the colors, size, font using CSS. It gets technical and I can help there. --Comaze 04:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] memo to self

WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience. Fainites 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attachment Therapy

Attachment therapay receives enormous amounts of govt funding. Probably the only reason it exists. Few would privately pay for this.

This the problem. It is under the radar. There is no way to really publish what types of therapies childrend receive without violated privacy laws. You see interested in bringing the truth out. Establish an email address and I will send you info. I am working under cover right now to gring out this info. (this was accidently left on my user page so I moved it hereFainites 19:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

I'd be glad to help you in this regard. There is much confusion about what is "AT" and what isn't. As described in the article in Wikipedia, it is a pretty limited rare practice and certainly not one endorsed by mainstream mental health practitioners. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 18:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EMDR

Hi Fainites, I noticed your comments to Dr Chris Lee on his page and the EMDR talk page. I think he meant that his edits to the article were removed (and they were when we had to revert the article because of that anonymous user's edits) - I don't think he meant that his comments from the talk page were removed. Kat, Queen of Typos 05:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Neuro-linguistic programming

Your recent edit to Neuro-linguistic programming (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 22:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was reverting pornographic vandalism which your bot put back! Never mind eh! All sorted now. Fainites 22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ref 17 on EMDR

No, it's still messed up - here, I took a screenshot: [8] Kat, Queen of Typos 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, much better! Kat, Queen of Typos 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] transfer message from user page from Dr Lee

I made changes to the Devilly sentences as it reflects an outdated review of the follow up data. Two more recent meta-analysis restricted the investigation to traditional exposure therapy and EMDR and found that they led to equivalent outcomes at follow-up (Bradley, Greene, Russ, Dutra, & Westen, 2005; Seidler & Wagner, 2006). In the most recent (Bradley, Greene, Russ, Dutra, & Westen, 2005; Seidler & Wagner, 2006) there is an interesting calculation to perform. If you remove the study with the largest effect size in any one direction (-.93) (devilly's by the way) then the resulting average .27 is significant and favours EMDR. This would be done by some people doing meta-analysis as the -.93 result is an outlier and creates too much heterogeneity. The authors left it in and concluded no difference. Also EMDR has had 18 month follow-up showing treatment effects in place (Edmond & Rubin, 2004). Recent studies suggest that traditional exposure treatments may not be so robust over time without but cognitive therapy is (Tarrier & Sommerfield, 2004).

Bradley, R., Greene, J., Russ, E., Dutra, L., & Westen, D. (2005). A Multidimensional Meta-Analysis of Psychotherapy for PTSD. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(2), 214-227. Edmond, T., & Rubin, A. (2004). Assessing the Long-Term Effects of EMDR: Results from an 18-Month Follow-Up Study with Adult Female Survivors of CSA. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 13(1), 69-86. Seidler, G. H., & Wagner, F. E. (2006). Comparing the efficacy of EMDR and trauma-focused Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in the Treatment of PTSD: a meta–analytic study Psychological Medicine 36 1515-1522. Tarrier, N., & Sommerfield, C. (2004). Treatment of Chronic PTSD by Cognitive Therapy and Exposure: 5-Year Follow-Up. Behavior Therapy, 35(2), 231-246.

Fainites 14:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/i/User_talk%7EFainites_4b6a.html"

Category: Wikipedia articles needing factual verification