User talk:Mike00764

Welcome!
Hello, Mike00764, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Neuro-linguistic programming
It is "largely discredited". See talk and discuss there first. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Who has the authority to make that decision? It may be largely discredited in some social/ professional circles but not the majority of them. The statement is extremely biased which is a violation stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. While reading the term 'largely discredited' may give you a warm and fuzzy feeling for someone who is 'pro' NLP, it is grating. And that is the meaning of biased. Neutral means that you and I should both be able to read it and see both pros and cons and then make up our own minds.

Paragraph three of the introduction is completely angled towards criticism and does not belong in the introduction as it is an attempt to completely have the reader 'take a side' which again is not neutral and IS Biased. I truly believe that everyone has a right to express and inform people of what they think however that should be done under the proper heading and in the case of paragraph three that would be under criticism.

The article is called 'Neuro-Linguistic Programming' NOT 'Warning Against NLP' which is exactly how it comes across. As you have no doubt figured out I am 'Pro' NLP and I also hold a degree in psychology and the way the article is written right now is NOT neutral. Let's work together to make the article perfectly neutral..so the reader can decide themselves Mike00764 (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

oh and apologies for the earlier break in wiki etiquitte... I've been at this for less then a day now Mike00764 (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Article reflects sources, neutral does not mean evenly balanced between pro and anti it means neutral in respect of the reliable sources. I strongly recommend that you read the archives on the talk page where these issues have been done to death over the years   Snowded  TALK 01:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, what is the 'wiki' criteria for 'reliable' sources? and once I find these 'reliable sources how do I edit them in without getting stonewalled? Apparently your definition of neutral and mine differ. While I will gift to you that you may know the wiki process much better, not for a moment do I think you have a better understanding of neutral. And while you tell me what you think 'neutral' means that doesn't mean that it is fact. In fact, I have no idea who and what authority you have to say what neutral is and isn't. For all I know you could be a group of people that simply have a 'hate on' for NLP. I'm not trying to be rude, I am working on truly understanding the process and it will take time to read everything. What I do know is until this morning I was just a user of wikipedia and what I read was a 'source biased' report that doesn't truly reflect the title of NLP. If this Article was named 'Warning About Neuro Linguistic Programming' then I wouldn't even bat an eyelash but it isn't it's called 'Neuro-Linguistic Programming' and it doesn't educate the people reading about it, it repels them from it and in no sense is that neutral.

For every source that is posted in this article I can and will find a 'reliable' source to counter and properly balance it out into a true neutral state but I need to know what constitutes a 'reliable' source and who defined it.

What is the reliable source that gives authority to claim 'largely discredited'. That statement is simply not true because of the sheer magnitude of the statement. There are 7 billion people on the earth are you certain that the majority of people on the planet earth have discredited it? Or are you speaking more specifically like psychiatrist or even more specific academic psychiatrist? Are you certain that it is the majority of them or are you just counting the majority of the references with in the article and assuming that it is accepted?

Just because an article is already written doesn't make it right and it definitely doesn't mean it can't be changed. Please understand, I'm not about making this article 'pro' NLP, I just don't agree with the 'anti' nlp under the heading of NLP. As far as paragraph three goes..I am RIGHT, it does NOT belong in the introduction. Mike00764 (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The definitions of reliable sources are well laid out as is the policy on neutrality. My view or your view on neutrality are simply not relevant so a hint, there is no point posting opinions as you do above, you need to reference policy.  In particular the idea that you need a majority vote of the planetary population.   You also need to be aware that there is a general pattern on pseudo-science articles and the like where new editors suddenly appear in clusters and attempt to change the article to what they call 'neutral'.  This article is no exception to that and we now have two new editors and one IP appearing out of no where, repeating arguments that have been brought up many times.   All of us assume good faith with a new editor and attempt to help taking what you say at face value.  But it is beholden on you to read up on the policies, and also read up on the history of the article so we don't all have to go round the same cycle time and time again.   Snowded  TALK 11:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading policy and reading up alot. I have a lot more to go but I have learned enough to know that the term "largely discredited" according to wikipedia standards  is either 1) a personal opinion or 2) To Generic of a term to be considered accurate. A more accurate way of saying it would be 'According to the majority of the sources with in this article NLP is largely discredited' In the advertising world, which is arguably as large if not larger then the social science world, NLP is a widely accepted and a heavily used technology. I'll find some reliable references to back this up and at that point the term largely discredit would have to come down correct?

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. NPOV from what I read implies representing fairly, PROPORTIONATELY and as far as possible without bias 'ALL significant views (Sources). For if you remove some 'pro NLP or true neutral references, (which has been done since conception and from what I can tell with no justification for it) it is no longer bias. Having said that and once I find all my reliable resources, do I edit the article or should I post it to EVERY single person that has had anything to do with this article? Like I said before I am not looking to make this article a PRO NLP article. I am however looking for an actual NPOV and from what I understand all I need to do is find resources that unfortunately have to counter what the current article states.

An Actual NPOV article does not cause people to experience elation or sick to their stomach feeling. I know that this article is not a NPOV because the sources cited are lobsided. As I mentioned I have a degree in psychology and I am a practitioner and this article is not a fair representation, the sources are not proportionate and things like paragraph three in the introduction make this article completely biased because it is criticism and it is still in the intro and that influences (biases) the readers opinion.

NOW you said "My view or your view on neutrality are simply not relevant so a hint, there is no point posting opinions as you do above, you need to reference policy."

I disagree, obviously it is relevant because my reading of the above NPOV and everything else that I have read within wiki policy and regulation SHOUTS that the Neuro-Linguistic Programming page in Wikipedia is not NEUTRAL because it only accounts for mostly 'negative sources' of what is wrong with NLP and lacks a description of what NLP is (and I'm not talking about what people in NLP claims it can do.)

I am not posting my opinion, I am stating a POV MY point of view. This is a talk page and from what I understand right now this is where we 'hash things out in the first stage to prevent a editing war and before reach heading down the long long path to arbitration

NOW YOU said 'You also need to be aware that there is a general pattern on pseudo-science articles' NLP is not a science of any sort, and that includes psuedo science. I have never even seen a reference by a reliable source that claims that NLP is a science outside of articles written by psychiatrist and psychologist that claim that NLP claims that it is. And from what I'm understand from the writting of the Neuro Linguistic Programming article. If a a pyschiatrist or a psychologist writes about NLP then it is deemed automatically to be 'reliable and even more importantly truthful because they don't make mistakes and definitely don't lie' Wouldn't HOUSE have a field day with that one :-)

I really am looking to do this the right way and am willing to put the work in. This article has already taken food out of my family's mouth and you have to ask yourself if someone was creating a situation that hampered your income and families quality of life, what would you do? There is an urgency for me here. Mike00764 (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I know a lot of people who make money from NLP regardless of what wikipedia says. Even if this is the case it does not justify you edit warring.  You have to find sources and make a case on the talk page for the changes you want.  if you don't you are going to be reported for edit waring and then you will get blocked.  If you persist the blocks will lengthen.  You've had a formal warning, if you were not a "new be" then your behaviour would already have been reported.  However tolerance of new editors only goes so far.  You are also harming your own cause by not arguing your case on talk.   Snowded  TALK 14:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Eureka!! I get it..no more editing wars. I Learned about the sandbox today. I apologize for my bull in a china shop approach.. it was more like a newbie in a electronics store :-) I believe I can do this 'the right way and thank you for your patients Snowded (no matter how thin I might have made them). I will endeavour to play nice but keep in mind I am still really new :-) Mike00764 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Snowded  TALK 23:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you don't know how to use talk then learn. I posted the welcome notice so that you would have access to relevant material. I suggest you familiarise yourself with that. Also if you can edit an article then its not difficult to use talk, really ... Snowded TALK 00:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I am in the process of learning about talk. I have only been involved in Wiki in this capacity for just under 12 hours and 8 of that has been working. I'll get the hang of it soon enough Mike00764 (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I also wanted to thank you for the information you've provided and even though we don't see eye to eye on the Neuro Linguistic Programming article yet. I do appreciate you helping me ease into the process. Mike00764 (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm am trying to play by the rules and see an article stated Neuro Linguist Programming that is very biased and not reflective of ALL views. The issues I am having are; 1) I'm inexperienced with Wiki editing and at avoiding an editing war.

2) I am having difficulty expressing or understanding how to change a format of the article to better reflect a NPOV.

3) I'm not sure how to ADD reliable references.

4) I don't know why I am being threatened to be blocked.

5) I don't understand how to submit a change without getting into an editing war.

I have been a wikipedian for about 36 hours and most of that has been learning about what I can and can't do and none of what I read seems to apply to me when it comes to editing. I'm becoming a bit frustrated and help would be greatly appreciated!
 * Hi and welcome. Learning policies can be a frustrating topic, but WP:NEWBIE can help. If you have questions, you can ask them at the Teahouse, where experienced editors answer questions and provide direction and help to newer editors like yourself. Also, I am available if you have any specific questions. In answer to the aforementioned questions, here we go:

1) See WP:3RR for the full policy, but in a nutshell, edit wars should be avoided and instead be worked out through a discussion on a talk page. The bold, revert, discuss model is a good place to start.

2) WP:NPOV is the full policy, but again, Wikipedia needs to be written from a neutral point of view; it's one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.

3) Reliable sources are third-party references that are accurate in their content. Specifically, you can click templates under the cite tab of the main editing interface and click "cite web" and fill out a form; it'll format the reference for you.

4) I haven't yet reviewed this, but if you are acting in good faith, I highly doubt you'll be blocked.

5) What do you want to add?

But again, the Teahouse is a great place to ask questions. Go  Phightins  !  22:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)