User talk:Encyclotadd

Happy New Year!
and a healthy, prosperous, and wonder-filled one as well, to you and yours! htom (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Proper process
Especially since it's unlikely that anyone else will, I would just like to thank you for trying to change the tenor of discussion at Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming to at least focus on properly following wikipedia's content development policies. siafu (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

NLP
This revert doesn't strike me as particularly reasonable. It is very clearly an unnecessary pov phrase. Secondly it is not a reason to revert that I didn't use the talkpage first. If you disagree that is another matter. I expect you to use the talkpage now to explain why you reverted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see there was ongoing discussion about this. I hadn't seen that before editing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your content POV is more or less right but the change you made was previously reverted by other editors. My edit moved the article back to consensus.
 * We're doing our best to have an orderly conversation on the talk page. But there has been a steady influx of SPA accounts including socks), sixteen of which were banned two weeks ago (all expressing your POV).  So it hasn't been easy.
 * Glad you brought up your feelings on the talk page so other experiences editors can comment on them.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I made a very orderly proposal and an RfC to draw non-SPA editors to the talk. One reason for the influx of SPA's might be that it really is blatantly obviously POV to anyone who reads it as a new user/reader. We have had similar problems at Race (human classification) where a purge of sockpuppet left the article so far in the other direction that new editors arriving started objecting. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No it was an NLP follower attempting in bad faith to manipulate the article over the course of several years, and finally getting caught. He was creating a steady stream of new accounts and publicly encouraging friends to get involved.  You are unfortunately making the same edit requests that were recently resolved, and I think the wrong approach to changing the POV.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then enlighten me on what is the "right way" to deal with improving and obviously problematic article when one's talkpage comments are bushed off with vague references to ani discussions and arbcom rulings?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * New reliable sources would be helpful.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources for what exactly? I am not making any claims or changing any content.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Additional sources for the article. Ideally third party secondary sources because reviews of empirical research have been the basis for much of the agreement to the wording of the introduction the article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that some of the reviews used as sources in the lead are being over-extended. Several of them only evaluate the results in addiction treatment, not any of the other proposed uses. The ones I can access also clearly state that the results are preliminary and should not be considered definitive. Furthermore the lead seems not to make the distinction between evidence based and other therapeutic systems - the "discredited" simply means that NLP is not considered to be an evidence based therapy. Furthermore the lead doesn't actually describe the claims of NLP, it lets us know that it is discredited and pseudoscientific because it doesn't get the results it aims for - it doesn't say anything about what the assumptions are. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This source seems like something that might be useful. It seems to be a review of clinical effectiveness by three proponents with relatively reasonable academic credentials. It could be used to show the proponent view.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * With your permission, let's have content conversations on the article talk page. I'll definitely review.  Remember that while I reverted your edit because it ran contrary to consensus, and am interested in your content suggestions, I am only one voice -- the other editors opinions are important as well.--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Manus, if you check the source you reference it says of the lead author "Lisa Wake is a Neurolinguistic Psychotherapist, and an internationally recognised Master Trainer of NLP. She is Director of Awaken Consulting and Training Services Ltd, which offers corporate consultancy, training, coaching and psychotherapy services".  She is tightly linked with the NLP practice group that is also based at the University of Surrey, which is also linked to the new Grindler stuff for which our now finally banned meat puppet master was paid to promote.  All of the Surrey stuff, including that book carefully qualifies their work as "needing further research" & relies on self-reported results. Given the strong commercial interest of the authors and the group its use as a reliable source is highly questionable.   That said, with the meat puppet saga behind us for the moment now is the time to do some work on the article so your proposals there are welcome.   Snowded  TALK 07:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lisa Wake was rejected as a source several times based on her stated conflict of interest, and while Snowded is wrong about a number of Skeptic Society sources he defends, I'm sympathetic to his views on this one.
 * We really need new third party secondary sources to avoid circular conversation. They aren't hard to find... the American Psychological Association peer reviewed journals are filled with them.--Encyclotadd (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * May I ask if your comments below mine at 12:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC) on the NLP talk page were addressed to me or somebody else. If at me, I'm not sure I understand at all.  Thanks.Roxy the dog (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Roxy, I apologize. That comment was directed towards Damien.  I've edited to clarify.Encyclotadd (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw the edit, then came here. Thanks for clarifying.  I am not really an editor, more somebody who occasionally dallies, but that talk page is unlike any I have seen before.Roxy the dog (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Paralanguage
You have "reverted" an edit I made, to the article Paralanguage. You deleted part of my edit on the basis that it was "original research". I think this is an error and, as I have been unable to find any explanation for what you did on the Talk page, I have undone it. My understanding is that paralanguage is a term coined by Gregory Bateson. To delete the reference to Bateson and his definition of the term therefore, on the basis that it is "original research", seems to me to be nonsensical. Trying to create a fuzzy neo-definition for the term was imo what led the original article into its original confusion, as is noted on the Talk page, and, it seems to me, this confusion was addressed by my edit. If you disagree with the logic of including the reference to Bateson in the way I did it, then please revert once again BUT setting out your reasons for doing so on the Talk page so that we may follow your understanding of the subject and take a view accordingly. Thank you. LookingGlass (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * LookingGlass, I understand your inclination to quote Bateson, and have no doubt that you are doing so correctly. But the rules require a reliable third party secondary source to establish the definition even if the definition is Bateson's, rather than conducting your own original research into first party original sources.  (See Wikipedia rules on combinatorics / RS.)
 * There's a reason for those rules to be in place. Original sources can mean different things at different times.  That was true for other terms Bateson used.  For example, logical levels meant conceptual categories in one of his books, and distinct levels within a single category in another work.  The Wikipedia rules address these dilemmas.Encyclotadd (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the point you are making, and the reasoning behind the wiki rule, but in some cases it seems to me to produce absurd results if inappropriately applied.  I would argue this is such a case.  The term paralanguage was originated/authored/created/etc by Bateson.  This does not appear to be in dispute.  To claim that stating this fact constitutes "original research" would seem to lead to any citing of any reference as being categorisable as original research.  Bateson's book IS here the historical record and is verifiable.  Replacing the "terms" in your argument, I assume that you would not argue that E=MC2 should not be cited as being Einstein's formula without the provision of a third party reference that quotes the formula and and attribuites it to Einstein.  It would be sufficient to directly quote that part of Einstein's work where he sets it out.  It would then be for others to find that the formula predates Einstein etc.  We seem to then be left in this case only with an opinion of whether Bateson is or is not notable.  I cannot see that he is not.  If wikipedia does not allow the historical record to be quoted that would be a nonsense but I do not believe this to be the case.  LookingGlass (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The goal of editors is to reflect what is expressed in third party reliable sources-- not original sources. Editors will certainly permit an edit quoting an original source but that edit must reflect views of reliable third parties.  It would be a particukarly good idea for you to follow this rule when editing other more controversial articles.Encyclotadd (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As you have chosen not to address the point I made, that sounds high handed.  Every society needs rules.   Justice however, relies not simply on the letter of the law but on its spirit.  Rigid enforcement of rules haas bizarre results, which is why legal systems have judges.  The point you are "enforcing" here (to what end?) is aimed, as i understand it, at preventing: 1) original research that is not the wiki equivalent of "peer reviewed", and 2) the promotion of articles that do not meet notability requirements and/or are merely promotional.  Neither apply here.  I am also getting the feeling that you consider this article to be "yours", and that it is therefore your role to permit or otherwise edits that other editors make.  I think your role is to be a member of the coop of editors and to work cooperatively with them to improve articles.  I gave you the opportunity to explain your position, but you seem only to quote the "law", as its judge and jury.  LookingGlass (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * LookingGlass, Please don't edit war. I didn't make the rules.  If you don't like them, please take them up with the parties responsible.Encyclotadd (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Encyclotadd, imo if this is an "edit war" is you who have initiated it. To me it is a disagreement over your editing of mine.  The difficulty you might be feeling is arising from your refusal to address the issue, preferring it seems to rely solely on the letter of wiki guidance, as if this were a Law which it is your role to uphold.  You ARE the person responsible in this instance.  There is no other I know of.  IMO we are BOTH editors of equal standing and right to our opinions on the interpretation and application of guidance to editing practice.  If you have the need at this point and would like to cite an appropriate forum for mediation please do so.  To reiterate my point more simply: a reference may stand for itself if it is a reputed source i.e it does not require validation from a 3rd party eg the first occurence of something IS its first occurrence, it is a reference that stands for itself and does not need to be verified by a 3rd part as existing.  If it is not a first occurrence, for instance, then it needs to be demonstrated that this is so, by reference to another reference that again would stand for itself. LookingGlass (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Linguistics (especially meta) is complicated and definitions not easily arrived at. In this case you are attempting to impose your view of a definition without a third party reliable source through original research.  That is improper because the word meant different things at different times.  Please find a third party source -- if your original research is right that should be easy for you to do.Encyclotadd (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the point you are making, however it seems to me that it is you who are imposing a theory ie that the term: "meant different things at different times". It is this which appears to me to be the O.R. here and the onus therefore on you to show that this is so.  I am NOT defining anything.  I am merely referring to the historical record.  This record, in this case a publication, is evidence of itself.  It does not require a third-party to "verify" it.  What the historical record clearly shows is that the term existed at a precise point in time, in a particular document, written by a particular author, and therein is defined in some detail both in it's evolution, context and meaning.  As non-existence cannot be proven, any third party statement that a book says what a book says is as incapable of doing better than the historical record of which it is a part. It cannot be proven that such a thing was not said before it was said in that book.  What is needed is proof.  That's it.  The absence of proof is not a proof of absence, and simply saying "well it may be.." is vapid.  Consider this:  I (the word "Paralanguage") was born on a certain day, at a certain, place, at a certain time.  My birth certificate (the historical record / the referenced book) is held as evidence of this fact.  However, while someone might be able to prove the document is a forgery I cannot prove that it is not.  I can only demonstrate it "beyond reasonable doubt".  In the absence of proof to the contrary, the historical record, as it is known at any time, is what is by definition THE historical record. The historical record is NOT a commentary ON the historical record (except of course that such commentaries are part of the historical record).  It is the sum total, in whole and part, of those documents, records and artefacts of which it consists.  It does not require a third party to interpret it or provide a reference to it, in the manner ancient that priests used with sacred texts, but only to the be referenced directly - by citation - as I did.  LookingGlass (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No I'm not asking anyone to accept my definition. Mine would be very different from what's written, and is absolutely based on original research, which is why I'm refraining from the change.  You on the other hand are doing original research and asking others to accept it as valid when you do not have third party reliable source to verify the claim.  I would urge you to review the rules because they are quite clear on the types of sources that are acceptable.  You may wish to note combinatorics when doing so because there is a major difference in treatment of first party primary versus third party secondary sources.  If you would please grasp that difference we wouldn't have to have this conversation.Encyclotadd (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many rules here, and even one WP:IAR which says to ignore all rules if this is necessary to improve Wiki, but my interest is in improving Wiki articles not legal nicety. However for some reason I cannot see and you do not disclose you are obdurately set on obstructing such improvement with claims that citing Bate's work amounts to "Original research" on my part!  You put forward no concete argument just vague reference to "the rules".  Please don't reply with a blizzard of every conceivable reference you can find that relates!  The facts seem to me simple :  1) Bates' work is acceptable as a source.  2) Authors are quoted as evidence of themselves as originators of that which they author.  3) The historical record is as is currently evidenced until contradicted by evidence.  However here, with you, there is some notion that only if a "third party" verifies that an author authored something, is that author then deemed to have authored it.  This seems patently absurd as far as I can see.  What are you trying to accomplish in practical reality here?  You seem far more concerned with enforcing your understanding of first, primary, second, seconday, third, tertiary etc source classification than with the article.  I have cut and pasted this conversation into the Tak page of the article so that others may contribute and the issue can be resolved as this exchange is not getting to grips with the issue.  LookingGlass (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but when there is a disagreement about content - as there is here - the rules serve an important function, and I would appreciate your abiding by them.Encyclotadd (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I refer you to my previous reply LookingGlass (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When conversations become circular let's just move on.Encyclotadd (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought go ahead and make the change. You've researched it well.  Why not. Encyclotadd (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)