User talk:WykiP

Hello, WykiP. Welcome to Wikipedia.

Sorry if I am bothering you but I thought it is important: While adding your entry to Wikipedia:Third opinion, you also damaged the page by deleting part of its contents. (But don't worry, I revived the contents.) Please be more careful while editing.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your note and correction. I found the page confusing to use. I dare say it could offer much clearer instruction since it is the first port of call for WP conflicts! WykiP (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Perhaps your concern is well-placed, I can't tell. You can try addressing it in its talk page (WT:3O) or later in Wikipedia:Village pump. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk)

Greetings, WykiP!
I'll have a quick look at that now, and see if I can be of any assistance. It was once one of my favorite places to spend time, and remains useful.

Thanks for stopping by to visit. (BTW, your etiquette is just fine ;o) --FeralOink (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I let you down. I don't know how to handle that situation. I looked, and read everything, and just didn't know how to deal with that other editor. I should have told you sooner. I'm so sorry. Please forgive me? --FeralOink (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WykiP. You have new messages at VQuakr's talk page.
Message added 15:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sorry for the delay in my response. I replied with a couple of additional thoughts about collaboration; regards! VQuakr (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has problems. I'll point you at a very old version, from before the pro- and anti- factions began "fixing" the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=9035096 Really, find an old paperback version of "Frogs into Princes" and "Reframing"; it's changed considerably from then, and I'm not sure the changes have been for the better. htom (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very different but lacking in citations. WP has an ARBCOM ruling ^[1] on pseudoscience as well as a guideline^[2] that it should not "should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community". I presume that's where the current critical description comes from. I started a subthread on the talk page as to whether mainstream science regards NLP to be a pseudoscience. WykiP (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BRD and respect it. The changes you call "POV" have been discussed before and the current restored text is as agreed. If you want to change it get agreement on the talk page first. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD is not policy or even guideline. Nor is it even relevant -- you introduced a typo into the article. It's revertible on that basis alone. WykiP (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now where have I heard that excuse on BRDbefore - I suggest you don't try it out as an excuse if reported under 3rr. Correcting the typo was easy ----Snowded ^TALK 20:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justifying the POV isn't proving easy for you. WykiP (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justifying a POV is never easy which is why I don't promote them. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your suggestion to read WP:REDACT. I realise now what I was doing when I was modifying my bad English, and my bad moods :-) Thank you. - Damien Raczy (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It is difficult to maintain patience, but it's one of the absolute requirements of an editor on certain pages. As long as you do that and stay within NPOV, I'll defend your right to be there. WykiP (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WykiP!

You are a most gracious sort. Thank you so much for your kind offer to help me with the odious PRISM article. Contention has now migrated to the Edward Snowden article, and I have decided to remove my inquisitive snout from further proceedings. That was very thoughtful of you to respond to my plea. You were the only one who did. Even if I am antipode-ally (diametrically? ;o) opposed to your views on NLP, I am happy to have met you and look forward to providing you with support and assistance on other matters whenever possible.

I am serious, about your thoughtfulness. It is uncommon, and appreciated! --FeralOink (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for participating in last May's RfC (Request for Comment).

I wish to invite you to join a new one with the specific question of:

Should our lead sentence describe Bettelheim as a "self-proclaimed psychologist"?

RfC on lead sentence

started: Feb. 25, 2020

Any time and effort you wish to spend on this will be most appreciated. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]