Wikipedia

User:122.x.x.x/reply to LKK re disruption

< User:122.x.x.x
Lam Kin Keung claim 1
"Asking for evidence using different identities"

"What exactly does it say in the "Clinician's Guide" and what is the evidence? Can you give a quote and page numbers? --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)"

  • Your request has been asked before: [1], and answered before [2]. Your activities here appear to be disruptive. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • diff 1a.1 "Yes agree. I made the even stronger changes to the two lines. Also the main issue of the section is “NLP has been criticized beyond its lack of reliable evidence for effectiveness”. That includes the pseudoscience related criticisms and the discredit related criticisms of Witkowski, Norcross et al and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson. I should have made that clearer in that first paragraph. See if it ok now. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)"..."Where in the Norcross paper does it discuss, report findings or make conclusions regarding NLP for the treatment of mental disorders? Can you provide a quote and page numbers? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)"
  • diff 1a.2..."Norcross et al (2006) state “ Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) for treatment of mental/behavioral disorders” and give average of second round at “3.87 (SD=0.92)” at page 518. Witkowski (2010) also states this as on "the list of discredited therapies" and “Neuro-linguistic Programming for treatment of mental/behavioral disorders averaged 3.87 (SD=0.92)” page 65. Norcross et al 2008 list “Neurolinguistic programming for drug and alcohol dependence” under “Top 10 Discredited Mental Health Treatments” (page 198) in the section “The Dark Side: Identifying What Does Not Work” page 196. In section “1.2.1. Treatments that do not work” Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list “Neuro-linguistic programming” under “Certainly Discredited” page 97. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)"
Lam Kin Keung claim 2
"adding material when no consensus reached"
  • diff 2a..."No editor is preventing you from raising the evidence (again). It is the fact that you are unilaterally adding material to the article while no consensus has been reached here that is the problem. That is what is being labeled disruptive. ISTB351 (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"

  • diff 2b..."Requests that have already been satisfied [3]: User talk page accusations [4][5]. It's the same repeat pattern of disruption that is ongoing. There is no reason for the proposed edit to be made. There is also less reason to spend effort on trying to satisfy disruptive requests. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"

  • diff 2c..."Did they make any conclusions specific NLP? --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)..."User122xxx. You have already posted a link to the article [6]. Please stop your disruptive time wasting behaviour. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)"
Lam Kin Keung claim 3
"attempting time wasting debate or original research"
  • diff 3a..."Yes, I have the full text here. But I want your scientific opinion on what the specific conclusions were made regarding NLP in this paper: Norcross et al., 2006. I can see it there in the results but cannot see it mentioned in the conclusions. Snowded said we need to report conclusions and is the reason I asked for clarification. --122.x.x.x (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)"...":Stop your disruptive nonsense. Editor opinion is irrelevant in this the matter. Witkowski reports on Norcross et al 2006. This has been covered before under one of your previous non-denied incarnations. You already know this. You appear to be persistently wasting editor effort deliberately in this matter. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)"
Lam Kin Keung claim 4
"as IP adding edit without consensus"

diff 4a...from "According to certain neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists" to "Critics, including a number of neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists, say that..."

  • diff 4b..."According to certain neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists"..."According to a number of neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists,"...
  • diff 4c..."A number of neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists, assert that..."
  • diff 4d..."According to a number of neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists"
Lam Kin Keung claim 5
"disruptive tagging"

According to Stollznow (2010),", to: "According to linguist Karen Stollznow (2010) in Skeptic (U.S. magazine), "

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Dunn et al 2008 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Norcross et. al. (2006) Discredited Psychological Treatments and Tests: A Delphi Poll. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.37.5.515
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:122.x.x.x/reply_to_LKK_re_disruption&oldid=474566802"