User talk:Chuckfreyconsultant

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Chuckfreyconsultant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. 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   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other 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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ckatz chat spy  02:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Advise
You have by your own admission edited wikipedia before under another name. Further you have send a threatening email off wiki which indicated that you intended the type of attack you just launched. You need to realise that you can't just write commentary - the error you made in the NLP article - you have to use reliable third party evidence. I suggest you read the welcome notice above and follow through the links. If you continue I will pass your off wiki attack email to an admin for review and action -- Snowded  TALK  07:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply
David Snowden

1. I have never advanced with any other name.

2. I have never threatened you. In the interest of academic communication I wrote you to "prior" to Wiki to show that Cynefin is a flawed model. I demonstrate that on Wiki too. I demonstrate to government agencies that have used your work in the UK, USA and Australia. I have contacted all of them and am demanding that my tax payer money be justified for use with you, and in future not be used on unproven hypothesis posing as theory. I prove on wiki how Cynefin is pseudoscience.

I have written to local and national press agencies because government has used your flawed model with devastating results (e.g. W. Bush administration).

Do you deny that ? You do advance that this is a "reality based model" like math ? (Yes - implicitly according to your article and web page).

3. The purpose of Wiki is to demonstrate 'facts", the truth. That is what I am doing.


 * Your email says that I deleted material you placed on the NLP article. Given there is no edit history here the only conclusion is that you edited under another name
 * I have no issue with you taking the view you do on Cynefin and if you want to make a fool of yourself with those government departments do (check out the awards the HBR article has received, I think you find they will carry more weight)
 * WIkipedia reports reliable third party sources, not the opinions of one editor. That is WP:OR.   I have been careful to follow the rules on the NLP article I suggest you do the same.  Oh, and please learn to sign your comments -- Snowded  TALK  07:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Irvine, if I ever decide to concentrate completely on hunting down block-evading editors - I'm confident you'd keep me busy. GoodDay (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this one is not Irvine GoodDay, Irvine's english was better for a start and this guy is using his real name - you can find him on the web and he sent me an email yesterday making various threats.   He got frustrated on the NLP page where his unreferenced commentaries were deleted and it looks like he has not learnt his lesson yet.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. Meanwhile, ya might wanna seek semi-protection for the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Your recent editing history at Cynefin shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block. If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. -- Snowded TALK  07:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 3rr report made -- Snowded TALK  11:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

David Snowden you will not bully me. In the past I did not have time, now I have all the time in the world with retirement
David, It is true I must learn a lot on Wiki. You have been "doing this for years". But I will not be bullied by you. The problem is : 1. You criticise NLP for being pseudoscience. That is "fair enough" !

2. However you then advance a model that itself is pseudoscience. How can you advance "Complexity science" as a 'description and a prescription for managers and leaders of organisations ' when Nobel Laureates are at odds about it when it comes to non-sentient systems like interacting molecules ? It is a nascent field even with non-sentient molecules (e.g. producing turbulence or a hurricane and so forth). Yet you advance it as a "robust model" for corporations! You are a "Professor" and know 'much more than me about business models' yet you advance pseudoscience ?

Your HBR article only got published once, years back, has made insufficient traction in the corporate world. So "well done for awards" but as Profs. Sutton and Pffeifer would state at Stanford "Baloney"! I put down their reference in the wiki criticism.

Chuckfreyconsultant (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)ChuckChuckfreyconsultant (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There are multiple references to NLP being a pseudoscience. My opinion is not relevant.  Equally your opinion is not relevant, if you can find reliable sources which critics Cynefin and they satisfy WP:WEIGHT then that material should be here.  But your opinion is not relevant.  No one is bullying you.  I have pointed you to the policies which you should read.  I have, given that you have been edit warring against those policies placed a warning on your page.  Hopefully that will get you to read WP:OR and WP:BRD  -- Snowded  TALK  07:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

So let me understand you correctly. If I can't find references that criticise Cynefin (bearing in mind that this model is so insignificant that there isn't much about it out there at all except your own subjective opinion and the HBR article), then I can not demonstrate on wiki that it is nonsense known as pseudoscience? Despite the fact it is equivalent to all other snake oil as proven by evidence based management or simply by the system known and practiced by you called "science" ?

David on a personal note - you are an erudite man. How can "you' of all people advance pseudoscience? I repeat: even Nobel Laureates are at odds with Complexity Science and that is for non-sentient systems, but you are advancing Cynefin for "interacting humans" as a "reality" ! You know well that it fails "evidence based management" tests that you would subscribe to for any other material. You are falling into your own trap: whereby "you are right as long as you believe it" but "others are wrong about other similar metaphorical models".

I notice it doesn't stop here. You write in such an erudite fashion yet are overtly a practicing mystic (see your status page: Roman Catholic). You know, far more than me as a "Professor" that the lack of evidence does not de facto mean an existence (deity nor Complexity Science as your proffer it with Cynefin) to be! Why do you draw the line between mysticism and reality David ? As for me, I draw it where Prof. Richard Dawkins draws it, where all other eminent scientists draw it. There must be evidence, it must satisfy scientific criteria to be valid. Cynefin (as well as that other belief of yours) fails the test. But you are a "Profesor' so you know that far more than me! So from a psychological perspective: why are you advancing this model ?

You know others were very erudite too like Freud, Jung, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle etc. Freud was a doctor yet advanced nonsense as "truths'. Jung was a learned man yet advanced and strongly believed in "Spirits, ghosts and so forth". You are not in that vague field "psychology" but a Professor of "stronger field" with knowledge of business. Conan Doyle was equally mystic believing in fairies. But you, in a modern age with Professorial designation advancing pseudoscience doesn't make "sense" to me. You are an expert at "sense making (c)" : you invented your own system for this! So let me ask you: why are you advancing pseudoscience ? Is Dawkins wrong? Am I wrong about Cynefin being pseudoscience? "Prof" Michael Shermer is surely not wrong when he identifies "why (smart) people believe in weird things" (title of his book, without the word smart).

Chuckfreyconsultant (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Chuck Chuckfreyconsultant (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you read the article you will find that the HBR article just won an award as one of the 50 most cited articles in its class since 2007. So there is plenty of material for you to examine if you want.  otherwise the purpose of wikipedia and talk pages is to improve the encylopedia.  If you want to criticise the framework then I suggest you see if you can get something published in a refereed journal.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you see your own contradiction above? Here are the rules "there is no criticism to Cynefin>>> therefore no criticism allowed on Wiki >>> try to publish criticism in a refereed journal >>> by the way no respectable journal would ever entertain the advancement or criticism of Cynefin, but HBR will advance it!" Comments of an uninvolved bystander about Snowded: bullying and harassment. 213.251.194.76 (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempting to harass other users. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Threats like this are absolutely unacceptable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness he's been blocked. Wikipedia doesn't accept threatening editors. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not issued any "threat" nor would I ever do that ! I have been blocked unfairly. My contention is with Cynefin: it is a pseudoscientific model posing as a reality-based model. When Nobel Laureats have no reached a consensus on "complex systems" with non sentient items like particles; there is "no way in heaven" that "Professor" David Snowden has reached a viable conclusion. Wiki is not a place for pseudoscience and where there is such, then it must be balanced with criticism. Chuckfreyconsultant (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)chuckChuckfreyconsultant (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

,