User talk:AJRT1

Welcome!

Hello, AJRT1, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! :: Princess Tiswas 19:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Wikipedia

Template:Wikipedia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. szyslak 10:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association

A tag has been placed on Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about the Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association are a non sequitur. Please add a hangon tag to the article, or I will, and the community can discuss it. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it sets standards for professionals who use a fringe therapy does not assert notability; in fact, it says nothing at all. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association

An editor has nominated Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please address all comments from now on to that discussion page. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Neuro-linguistic programming. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Snowded ^TALK 18:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronism. Nonexistent page. Odd.AJRG (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected, I must have been subconsciously associating NLP with six sigma et al. I'm sure you worked it out anyway. --Snowded ^TALK 08:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out conflicts of interest isn't a personal attack... AJRG (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making invalid claims however is - and please start to sign in. I note your recent breech of WP:BRD using an IP address --Snowded ^TALK 08:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I signed the contribution in my own name a minute later... Several editors have highlighted your conflicts of interest. Your own opinion on that is hardly unbiased. AJRG (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few editors have attempted that tactic to try and get a POV established on a page but have not been able to provide any evidence to support the contention. It seems a common tactic of advocates of fringe theories and pseudo-sciences. Your "you edit another journal" was probably one of the most nonsensical attempts so far. The only reason you could even make the spurious accusation was that my CV etc. is available. Its also noticeable that your edit history appears to be mostly based around NLP and NLP related subjects. Maybe you could confirm what your relationship is with NLP and its various associations (I note your attempt to prevent one article being deleted) --Snowded ^TALK 11:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your financial interest in Management Consultancy, where you compete with NLP, is clear. Your professional interest as a journal editor is also clear. I have no financial or professional interest in NLP, nor am I trained in it. AJRG (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no recollection of ever competing with an NLP practice or practitioner and the accusation you make there was not supported when it was taken to the conflict of interest notice board. I am afraid that a set of conference proceedings in a fringe subject is not even in the same area as any of the journals I edit. For someone with no interest in a subject you seem to spend a remarkable amount of your time in advocacy. --Snowded ^TALK 11:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's Wikipedia. Spiral Dynamics was a different issue. If you'd like me to take this to the Conflict of Interest noticeboard, I'd be happy to. Talking to you about it first seemed better practice. AJRG (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to address content issues and stop playing games. How you choose to manage that is your own affair. --Snowded ^TALK 12:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:snowded AJRG (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BRD Having played the game above you are now edit waring, refusing to comply with basic WIkipedia rules. I suggest you self revert --Snowded ^TALK 10:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incoherent. What are you trying to say? AJRG (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have just broken WP:BRD on the NLP and Science page. My reference to the "game" is your spurious COI report and your general failure to follow WP:AGF. As I say, self revert and follow proper procedure. Much more of this and the general pattern of your editing may merit more attention. --Snowded ^TALK 10:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted based on an incorrect assumption about source. AJRG (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are persistently ignoring the points about WP:BRD and WP:AGF. I'm trying to help you here, but I'm also giving you fair warning. Please learn to edit in a collegiate fashion. --Snowded ^TALK 11:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try to address the actual merits of the case rather than shooting from the hip. AJRG (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) Well don't say I didn't try to help an obviously inexperienced editor. --Snowded ^TALK 11:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were trying to help, you wouldn't behave in the way do, in the manner you do. AJRG (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat question

I went through all your NLP edits early this morning as I had started to note a pattern. They all seem to be associated in some way with the Association for NLP (inserting references to their publications, building their position with original research etc. etc.). Also you seem to have easy access to historical minutes etc. that do not come up on a general Google search. Would you please declare any interest or association you have with this group. If there is none then say so, but I would like confirmation. --Snowded ^TALK 08:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you ask questions twice - I have no interest or association with ANLP. Wikipedia editors write articles on all sorts of subjects. I simply went to the ANLP site on the Wayback Machine and looked around for five minutes, as anyone could have done. AJRG (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you have been around the Wikipedia for a few years you will find multiple examples of editors acting as proxy promoters. You have edited NLP articles from a ANLP perspective, taken an interest in the biography of the ANLP founder and attempted to create a page for a ANLP offshoot. I find it best in such circumstances to ask the question directly so that the reply is on record. Pending evidence to the contrary I then accept the assurance. --Snowded ^TALK 09:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My original preoccupation was with the Isle of Man. I became curious about NLP when I saw editors trying to airbrush it out of Wikipedia. NLPt is a recognised psychotherapy in the UK, so I researched a page on the NLPtCA. Their website discusses their history and the founding of the ANLP. AJRG (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone wants to airbrush it out of wikipedia, its more a matter of preventing it making claims to science and/or promotional edits that concern people. I'd broaden your sources if I were you. --Snowded ^TALK 11:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would take that view more seriously if proper weight were given in Wikipedia to NLPt as a recognised UK psychotherapy. Your help in that would be appreciated. AJRG (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get some third party evidence and I'll happily do so --Snowded ^TALK 14:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of it, but it needs a page to go on. How about "Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy in the UK"? AJRG (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No comment - I suggest you assemble a draft as a sandpit so we can check your authorities. So far most has been OR --Snowded ^TALK 14:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Paul Burns (Psychotherapist)

A tag has been placed on Paul Burns (Psychotherapist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Supertouch (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following along

In general I am finding your interventions on pages I am editing amusing at worst, useful at best. Its always good to have another set of eyes looking at articles. You do need to be careful though. Aside from some silly repetition of dubious points after they have been answered, you are bordering on WP:HOUND which you might want to read. Following editors to other articles is one established way of expanding your watch list on fields of interest. eg. I generally keep an eye on NLP pages for example, so your edit there brought me the NLP association page. However following an individual editor onto a range of pages just for the sake of it, in particular if you always take a position in respect of that editor is frowned on and can lead to blocks etc. You've done good work on some articles, don't spoil that by pushing the limits on accepted community behaviour. --Snowded ^TALK 12:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, when you follow me around that's OK? Not so long ago you incorrectly accused me of only editing NLP pages. Then, when I see what I can learn from watching your famous "expertise" in action, you can't cope. Don't treat other people in ways that you don't want to be treated yourself. You've conveniently forgotten that I took your part on Richard Llewellyn... AJRG (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See comment "useful at best" above, if you had taken up a nonsense position at Richard Llewellyn I think I would have given up on you. If anyone edits an NLP page in a partisan way then I check to see if there are other NLP articles being spawned that I don't have on watch. Thats normal. Following an editor around to multiple pages making the same points again and agin even when they have been answered is not the same thing. Its good for you to diversify your edits but try and focus on the content. I'm coping fine by the way, just giving you a hint before something gets serious. Your call if you take any notice or not but don't say I didn't try and help and make you aware of policy. --Snowded ^TALK 19:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not trying to help, you're trying to be right. You clearly believe that your opinion is of the greatest importance and seem to think that I should share that belief. AJRG (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Llewellyn

Hmm. Long time ago, but my recollection is that I learned this from a BBC Wales documentary about him. It must have been after the publication of "Who's Who in Welsh History" (1997) by...er...me, because I have him listed there just as Richard Llewellyn Lloyd. Deb (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember, but I'm thinking it was probably part of a series, such as "The Slate", because they don't usually do one-off documentaries. I'm not 100% sure it was even BBC, now I come to think of it (though it's more likely). Deb (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BI

Hi. Have a look at my recent changes to the BI article. I think that I managed to maintain the Angevin aspect while retaining the overall and more recognizable "Norman" aspect too. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rife Talk

I was too slow. When I submitted my reply to Mastcell, you had already applied your update. I put in my reply to Mastcell, followed by your posting, and then replied to your posting too. Oldspammer (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Rife article was the subject of a deletion debate (probably twice).

The ONLY reason that the Royal Rife article was kept the prior (and this) time was that it was able to demonstrate that Rife was a famous medical quack / science fraud that pushed fake / fraud science to cure diseases. If the article begins to show that Rife is accepted, or was good, or things of that nature, the the article will likely be up for "deletion vote" again by the allopathic medical interest group here on wikipedia. If you want to know why, then I can comment further. Oldspammer (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish identity

The draft with BBC & Independent citations now appears under Demographics. However the citn for pp. 20 ff of the census guidance was a technical problem so I hope it can be added by another editor. The Launcells survey & Hosking's article are worth a brief mention though the discussion shows more opposition to them.--Felix folio secundus 11:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What error did you get? AJRG (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pdf file gives an option to download or save but when saved Adobe reported the file was damaged. I needed the whole filename to include in the citation but could only see part of it.--Felix folio secundus 11:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Check the source of my link. AJRG (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; it will have to wait until later today as I have other matters for attention now.--Felix folio secundus 13:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:RoyRife.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:RoyRife.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nlp

Apologies for the vandalism tag the iPad is little sensitive I meant to revert and advise you to take your odd interpretation of OR to the relevant forum

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AJRG. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, AJRG. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]