User talk:Jmcgnh/Archives/2017/07

A question about the infobox on "Transactionalism"

As I move to create an article for the book, I wondered if you might have an answer to a question. Is there a way I can cut and paste the markup code for an infobox into a new article or do I have to create it all from scratch again? sheridanford (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@SheridanFord: You can cut and paste infoboxes, but there may be one or more few fields that relate specifically to the article the infobox is placed in, so those would need to be updated after the paste. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

NLP AFD

Hi, as somebody who has contributed recently to articles on neuro-linguistic programming I wondered if you could have a look at this AfD, which is not getting much attention. Famous_dog (c) 07:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Famousdog: Thanks for thinking of me. I'm afraid I have little to add, for or against, to the AfD. NLP is a sufficiently important, though fringe, topic related to psychotherapy that Gilligan's role in its foundation – if that role were suitably documented in the article – that content would strike me as sufficient reason to say Keep. As the article currently does not adequately document much about Gilligan's role in NLP or other aspects of his particular practices, I can easily see why someone would vote Delete. I'd prefer to see an expansion, but I'm not going to pretend that I'll ever do anything in that direction. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Dr Jordan Peterson

Hi Jmcgnh you undid my edit to Dr Jordan Peterson's biography without referencing the talk page as requested. Please egage on the talk page if you wish to make changes to my edits. Keith Johnston (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Will discuss at Talk:Jordan_Peterson#Dr_Peterson.27s_critiques_and_commentary, not here. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

At The Hub

I'm starting to wonder if this issue on the talk page needs to be looked at by some more neutral eyes. The comments regarding the talk page especially concern me, as that's not how a talk page works. I'm really seeing a good deal of ownership on this article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore:, I entered this discussion based on unusual edit summaries at Recent Changes. I may have deviated from strict neutrality by calling the old lead sentence "ridiculous", but it was so far from normal Wikipedia writing that I felt a strong response was called for. I probably went too far and, now that I've engaged, I probably can't be considered neutral any more. In my opinion, the IP editor has engaged in several disruptive practices, the most obvious behavioral problems being the deletion or archiving of discussions and demanding ever-more-explicit interpretations of various rules and guidelines as a form of Wikilawyering. There's also something resembling ownership of the article, or, at least, an expressed belief that the amount of work they put into it contributes to the decision on whether the content can remain. More eyes and voices are needed. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Seeing their last comment on the talk page, WP:OWN definitely was the issue I believe. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore:, agreed. I'm attempting to somewhat ameliorate the situation with some suggestions that I hope will be taken as constructive. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, I was happy to support you. I'm glad the video of your talk about The Teahouse got posted at the AfD, too. I thought about doing it, but someone got there before I did. Happy mopping to you! — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Lommel

Hey i saw you did edit Lommel. Well, could you maybe answer my question at Talk:Lommel. Thanks, Bobbyjohn10 (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Bobbyjohn10: If I had a good response to that question, I might have answered it, but I don't. This is the English version of Wikipedia and I have no objections to articles using English names for things, though I could be amused by "Leghorn" for "Livorno". In my experience, the Dutch speakers I have run into all understood and spoke English well enough to help your hypothetical tourist with no hesitation at all. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)