User talk:GregA

Discussion of NLP outline

 * Write whatever here. Be civil as per Arbitration guidelines. Greg

Hello GregA. Interesting argument! I have a few questions.

ATB. Camridge 05:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Are you denying that many NLPers claim that NLP is a science?
 * 2) Are you saying that NLP does not need scientific testing after it was found to be ineffective?
 * 3) Are you denying that reviewers of NLP research have stated that NLP is ineffective?
 * 4) Are you saying that your own research supercedes the research of independent scientific researchers?
 * 5) Are you saying that the research on NLP focused only on PRS?

Hi Camridge, thanks for dropping in. In answer to your questions... Thanks Camridge. Greg 05:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. I believe any NLPer who says that should understand what it means and why they claim it's a science. I certainly "deny" that any NLPer claims that NLP is Psychology though, or that NLP uses the scientific method.
 * 1) In answer to your question - I'm not sure where you got this from, I said nothing of the sort. In answer to your presupposition - there has been psychological testing that found it effective (and I'm saying that). Fill me in on where you got this question from and I'll reply more fully.
 * 2) Nope, not denying that some reviewers have said it's ineffective. I do debate that "all" do, and I do debate that they are as unbiased as implied (given the titles and target audience for their books).
 * 3) hehe... where did you get that? Of course not. I am saying it is a failing of BOTH NLP and Psychology that they haven't attempted to do research TOGETHER to show any validity (or lack of) for NLP processes.
 * 4) PRS - not "ONLY" - a lot of early stuff was PRS, and it sways much of the reviews. By far the greatest quantity of research was in PRS (and a lot on Rep Systems generally too) - there's far less research into re-imprinting or metamodel!

Lakoff
Here are all the references to Lakoff that I know of...
 * pp.109,208 Structure of Magic Vol.1 (cites Linguistic and Natural Language, 1970)
 * Patterns II also cites Lakoff (1970)
 * Lakoff gets a mention in Whispering in the footnotes of Ch.3 (18) but this is relation to Susan Elgin (a co-author and research partner of John Grinder in the early 70s) challenge to Lakoff.
 * --Comaze 06:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP Arbitration
This is a courtesy note to those who voted in the Arbitration vote posted Nov 3 on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming.

Please be aware that a request for arbitration has now been submitted.

The parties involved have been notified on their talk pages, and on the article itself.

FT2 12:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

NLP
Yeah. Sorry for removing your comments without an explanation. What you said most definitely was fine, but jdavidb wants to follow this format, so... --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Refactored your comment
...about flavius. Please stick to discussing issues, don't comment on contributors, particularly something insulting about their motives. Thanks. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 12:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

NLP Workshop
Hello Greg. Sorry to make this request but there's simply too much filibustering on the NLP workshop page for me to follow it all on an ongoing basis. Would you be so kind as to give me a heads up if and when anything ever goes to a vote, straw poll, etc (like the recent request from kate) and I'll read everything and voice my opinion at that time? And if you're ever unsure, err on the side of letting me know. Is that something you can do for me? I know it's a bit of an ask. Peace either way. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  01:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Greg, that's perfect. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  13:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories in userspace
Hi! I noticed that in your scratchpad / draft / alternative article User:GregA/NLP you have the categories still activated, so it's showing up in Category:Pseudoscience and many others. Could I suggest that you deactivate them (by putting a colon before 'Category' in the link) until such time as the article is in the mainspace rather than the userspace? (As per WP:CG, "If you copy an article to your user namespace (for example, as a temporary draft or in response to an edit war) you should decategorize it.") Cheers, Ziggurat 20:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

NLP & science
Comments and edits on that articles talk page? FT2 (Talk) 20:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

NLP Overview article
I have moved "NLP Overview" to User:GregA/NLP Overview, it should not be in the Main namespace. See User talk:GregA/NLP Overview for details. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

belewe = betrayer in Blue moon article
Greg, long overdue, but in begin of 2008 you added a new explanation for "blue moon" = "betrayer moon", which totally makes sense when, before the Gregorian reform, the ecclesiastic solar and lunar calendar had totally lost sync with the real heavenly bodies, and no-one could anticipate Easter by looking at the sky anymore. Apparently you took that meaning from the webpage of the Farmers´ Almanac (http://www.farmersalmanac.com/what-is-a-blue-moon). However do you know a more authorative source for the meaning of "belewe"? I don´t have (old) English dictionaries at hand. That reference should go into the Blue Moon page. Let me know, Tom Peters (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Greg, thanx for your reply on my talk page. I find the explanation of "blue Moon" as "betrayer Moon" very interesting, but I like to have it backed up by a better reference than just the Farmers´ Almanac website.  Also the origin of the middle-English rhyme from 1528 remains obscure: now the wiki page refers to bartleby.com where the background of the poem is discussed: but the actual rhyme is not quoted there, and that page suggests to me that all copies of the pamphlet have been destoyed at the time.  So do you have access to, and can you quote with proper literature reference, English reference books that we can quote as a bona fide source for the rhyme, and for the meaning of belewe?  Thanx, Tom Peters (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Teamwork
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Teamwork. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Teamwork. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Plug-in electric vehicle into Battery electric vehicle
If you are interested please discuss at Talk:Battery_electric_vehicle Chidgk1 (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of LifeLine (medical transport)


A tag has been placed on LifeLine (medical transport), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. mathieu ottawa (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)