User talk:DaveRight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, DaveRight, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

That was a canned welcome speech; I hope the rest of your time on WP is more enjoyable. DS 02:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to make it as colourful as wikipedia. DaveRight 06:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[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 02:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing Fred, Will do! DaveRight 03:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 04:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You must be kidding Mysekurity, I just woke up! Cheers DaveRight 03:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

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 civility on that page. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 04:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[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] WP:NPA warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, DaveRight says, "Only with regard to throwing the book at Comaze and other miscreants."[1] Please remove this personal attack from the NLP discussion page. regards, --Comaze 10:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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. DaveRight 04:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structure Occult

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. jVirus Image:Confederate Battle Flag.svg 05:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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. DaveRight 01:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi guy

[edit] Hi guy

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. 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. Terryeo 08:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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. Terryeo 08:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

From a neuroscience perspective, there is a difference. Scientists use the scientific definition of engram, and pseudoscientists use the scientology/dianetics version. DaveRight 03:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLP

I gave some observations about your change proposal on the NLP workshop page. Take a look, give it some thought and respond. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And sorry for taking so long. You had some good ideas, btw. Making the language simpler is a very good goal. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, Woohookitty. I'll post up a few changes. Cheers DaveRight 01:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I've blocked you for 3 hours for your most recent comment, which included: Just the same pseudoscientific objections. We could present another set of NLP excuses. Don't cast aspersions on other peoples' motives or denigrate their opinions simply because they differ from yours. Remember to assume good faith. Everyone is welcome to contribute at Wikipedia. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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 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.

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 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. DaveRight 06:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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 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. Camridge 07:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
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 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. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Makes no difference to me Woohookitty. I know how things stand. You can ban me if you like. My research will continue. DaveRight 02:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
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. Camridge 03:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Camridge! DaveRight 09:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked Camridge for 24 hours for his comments here. Either respect us or go find something else to do. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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 DaveRight 02:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


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. Camridge 04:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] difference that makes the difference

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 DaveRight 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)"

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. ---=-C-=- 02:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, something like that. DaveRight 06:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have been blocked indefinitely

It has been proven 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. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Please show evidence. I'm a coffee shop editor. I use public computers only. DaveRight 02:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A checkuser was run on the specific IP addresses used by these various accounts; all were matches for one another, see [2]. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 02:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
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. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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 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 DaveRight 03:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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, and all happen to edit the NLP workshop page from the same coffee shop(s)? A bit too convenient. Sorry, doesn't wash with me. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
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 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 DaveRight 04:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)