User talk:122.x.x.x
NLP
[edit]Wowsers, you're starting too many discussions on that page. Better to sub-section. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Its hard to keep the discussion focused. That's why I opened a new thread for specific changes. --122.x.x.x (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Please wait until a consensus has been reached at talk before proceeding unilaterally re Norcross et al. Continued reversion while the matter is under discussion (it has already incidentally been resolved) may constitute vandalism under the circumstances. ISTB351 (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'll try reaching consensus but Snowded refuses to discuss any sources - he just makes accusations of sock-puppetry and personal attacks. I made it clear that this single purpose account is anonymous and I want it to stay that way. What makes you think it has "incidentally been resolved"? If you check the research, there are two Norcross polls that included NLP: one that looked at Mental and Behavioural disorders (published in 2006) and one that looks at Drug and Alcohol dependence (published in 2010). See my comments on the discussion page. --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- From what can be inferred from the talk page the issue appeared to have been resolved. It may not have been. If that is the case, then editors with a greater understanding of the topic than me will address your points. The point is that edit warring will get you nowhere, and may lead to a block. ISTB351 (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please see the guide for WP:BRD. It it normal for people to engage in a revert and discuss cycle. I have lost faith in a number of editors at that discussion forum. They seem more interested in slurring other editors than working on the article. That is far more disruptive than any of my edits which are based on representing the sources more accurately. I definitely need help here. Can you help me? --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is undeniable that legitimate questions have been asked in good faith about possible sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry that you may be involved in. I cannot help you in that matter, and it will be for another place to resolve. Unilateral reversion is not in keeping with brd. If you are going to make a controversial change, then outline the exact edit you want to make at talk in a new section, and ask for other editors' thoughts. Your suggestions may be rejected in line with WP policy, or they may be accepted. WP works on consensus, not through edit warring. It is however not surprising that other editors may get a little exasperated that the same issues are raised repeatedly at NLP, and there have been numerous unfounded accusations of bad faith against Snowded TALK and Lam Kin Keung (talk) for example. You need to stick to the point and not attempt to divert the talk page into general discussion, per WP:NOTAFORUM. ISTB351 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please see the guide for WP:BRD. It it normal for people to engage in a revert and discuss cycle. I have lost faith in a number of editors at that discussion forum. They seem more interested in slurring other editors than working on the article. That is far more disruptive than any of my edits which are based on representing the sources more accurately. I definitely need help here. Can you help me? --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- From what can be inferred from the talk page the issue appeared to have been resolved. It may not have been. If that is the case, then editors with a greater understanding of the topic than me will address your points. The point is that edit warring will get you nowhere, and may lead to a block. ISTB351 (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- How do you establish consensus when up against people with an agenda to disparage or promote a topic? WP:BRD has works well in other articles, why not this at NLP? --122.x.x.x (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have approached Snowded myself over the semi-wikibullying he and associates seem to be engaged in. Again, nothing but dismissive attitude. I think its awful what is happening to good faith editors on the NLP article. It also looks likely that such bullying is deterring the broader range of editors from engaging. Its a sad spectacle with only a few good faith editors working to put things straight. Congru (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- You cannot win, can you? You try to ask them about what sources are acceptable then they say you need to propose specific edits. When you propose specific edits, they accuse you of engaging in sock or meatpuppeting or repeating previous suggestions. I'll try but I have not had much luck engaging those editors in reasoned discussion. --122.x.x.x (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have approached Snowded myself over the semi-wikibullying he and associates seem to be engaged in. Again, nothing but dismissive attitude. I think its awful what is happening to good faith editors on the NLP article. It also looks likely that such bullying is deterring the broader range of editors from engaging. Its a sad spectacle with only a few good faith editors working to put things straight. Congru (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
As you requested, the citation for the top ten claim has been changed to Norcross et al. (2010), not that it makes any difference to the content of the page. ISTB351 (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- We still need to discuss the specific wording. --122.x.x.x (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
please use the talk page
[edit]You are doing the slow edit war thing again. Leaving things a few days then making changes to the article when the matter is still on the talk page. That change (or a variation of it) has been rejected by other editors already, and some months ago. Also it was not a compromise (that was misleading) the major change you made earlier was still there. Please be aware that edit warring is not confined to three reverts in 24 hours, but can include this type of slow edit war. Your suggestion that you gain a mentor at ANI is an odd one for an experienced editor, but there is merit in it. --Snowded TALK 00:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- It was not a revert at all. The edit contained wording to satisfy your objections. --122.x.x.x (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- And restored your preferred wording which had been rejected. You are edit warring, and you are still subject to the Arbcom injunction you know. You are in fact failing to comply with this one in particular. If you had not taken this to ANI there would be grounds to take this to enforcement. --Snowded TALK 01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I do believe that if all the editors on the NLP and related articles followed those remedies it would be a much better editing environment in the long run. Really those arbcom rulings are useful guidelines for anyone to follow especially on NLP and related articles. In fact anyone who edits the NLP article should be covered by those ArbCom rulings. We should also observe this one too: "The article could more closely conform to neutral point of view by ascribing controversial viewpoints such as "NLP is pseudoscience" to those who have expressed such opinions, rather then presenting them as bald statements of fact." --122.x.x.x (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- The article clearly ascribes the pseudo-science comments and reverts would not be necessary if you stopped slow edit wars. Its a long term habit of yours to attempt to change the article when you don't get your own way on the talk page, or when talk page discussion is going on. You have been editing wikipedia for a very long time and you know the rules --Snowded TALK 09:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I do believe that if all the editors on the NLP and related articles followed those remedies it would be a much better editing environment in the long run. Really those arbcom rulings are useful guidelines for anyone to follow especially on NLP and related articles. In fact anyone who edits the NLP article should be covered by those ArbCom rulings. We should also observe this one too: "The article could more closely conform to neutral point of view by ascribing controversial viewpoints such as "NLP is pseudoscience" to those who have expressed such opinions, rather then presenting them as bald statements of fact." --122.x.x.x (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- And restored your preferred wording which had been rejected. You are edit warring, and you are still subject to the Arbcom injunction you know. You are in fact failing to comply with this one in particular. If you had not taken this to ANI there would be grounds to take this to enforcement. --Snowded TALK 01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Reliable Sources/Noticeboard
[edit]Would you terribly mind if I reformat your section slightly, to make it easier to read for RS/N editors? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've reformatted it like this, to improve legibility, and ease in identifying your question. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject NLP/DefinitionLayout
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject NLP/DefinitionLayout, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here.
...& same for Wikipedia:WikiProject NLP/Header. Chriswaterguy talk 12:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Your draft article, User:122.x.x.x/Frogs into princes
[edit]
Hello 122.x.x.x. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Frogs into princes".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:122.x.x.x/Frogs into princes}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. PNGWantok (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)