Talk:Neurofeedback/Archive 2

message: :I reckon if this article could be cleaned up it would make for a very interesting read. Dessydes 14:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comments

message: This post is just for the record in case anyone here has had issues with the named editor or others editing similarly on this article. The following editors are as of June 5 2006, blocked indefinitely under any name:
:* HeadleyDown editing as ""
:* HeadleyDown editing as ""
:* HeadleyDown editing as ""
:* HeadleyDown editing as ""
:* HeadleyDown editing as "".
:* Also identified as sockpuppets and indefinitely blocked: "", "", and 4 or so "single-use" sockpuppets.
:* Finally, "" was also blocked, for breach of multiple policies (not a sock of HeadleyDown, but repeated major conduct and editorship issues)
It is not confirmed whether other editors are also in the same sockpuppet/meatpuppet group. They may be. It may also help to be alert in general, to new editors and repeat behavior. Reversion of heavy duty POV editing and forged cites added over many months (back to May 2005) has been needed in cleaning up that article.
Please see Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming for more, including summary of reasons and behaviors related to this. 
Formal ban and block documentation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans. 
FT2 (Talk) 14:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General info: HeadleyDown, and about 14 sockpuppets blocked on similar article to this 

message: I removed the cleanup tag. NPOV or not, it's changed and improved in the time since may 2005. -- ∞Wirelain 05:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup tag 

message: I have not contributed to Wikipedia before, so please forgive my current ignorance about how to post a comment appropriately with identifying tags, etc. I just want to say how HUGE an improvement the current version of the Neurofeedback article is-- over what was here a year ago! As an alternative medicine practitioner--and practicing as a licensed psychologist in California--the prior set of rants and raves was quite terrible to behold. The current article can easily be edited and added to and it is, above all, informative. I assume the Wikipedia editorial group must have done some work to rescue this article from its prior lamentable state, so, many thanks.
--Gregalter 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on Improvements to Neurofeedback Article 

message: I wonder if this article would benefit from adding the work being done in neuroscience/neurology (see brain-computer interface page) as well as the psychological studies already detailed here? It sounds like the former direction of the article was to look at neurofeedback as an alternative theory. It's also being used to assist paralysed patients move computer cursors (and even limbs) by thought. So perhaps the core of the article is to describe the science behind it and then the applications. I think there is even talk of releasing computer games that use neurofeedback and there are sourceforge projects seeking to design an open-source EEG.
I also agree with the user that suggested merging this page with the EEG Biofeedback page. Big overlaps. --Saganaki- 02:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article heading towards a more scientific and factual footing 

message: This poor beleaguered page.  Why is its neutrality disputed right now?  Katsam 10:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, maybe because it is the WORST REFERENCED ARTICLE in all of Wikipedia??? This entire article is pure unreferenced extreme POV rubbish. I wish I wasn't studying and working full time right now I could fix an article as biased and destructive as this one - manipulating people into believing that electrodes on your head can cure diseases and disorders. It's good that the article records the Ohio court finding that EGG is completely useless - this should be right up top of the page though.--60.242.49.64 11:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sigh

message: The "history" section is garbled and needs more footnoting.  The "art" section reads sort of like product placement.  And the whole article could use reorganizing (possibly in the direction of the brain-computer interface stuff discussed above).  Katsam 08:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag

message: Not that i believe biofeedback belongs in the "alternative medicin" realm, but the two fields are close enough and based on the same major principle. So how one got to be called "medicinal" and the other "alternative"? Hush wtf (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does this differ from biofeedback?