So if I understand the article, one should use the communication pattern:
When ____[observation], I feel ____[emotion] because I’m needing some ____[universal needs]. Would you be able to ____[request]?
For instance:
When [you're acting like a dickhead], I feel [the urge to punch you] because I'm needing some [fking professionalism]. Would you be able to [stop acting like a dickhead]?
There are several sentences in the piece dedicated to explaining that treating the [emotion] section as a synonym for [attack that happens to be prefixed with the word feel] is a corruption of the practice.
There’s also a section explaining the difference between requests and demands.
But your formulation does tend to highlight why people get incensed at amateurish imitations of NVC.
Reading your post, I feel that you don't understand the article. I come to HN for substantive commentary that engages and expands upon the source material. Would you be able to read it again with a fresh perspective, and share your criticism in a less sarcastic and more informative way?
When ____[observation], I feel ____[emotion] because I’m needing some ____[universal needs]. Would you be able to ____[request]?
For instance:
When [you're acting like a dickhead], I feel [the urge to punch you] because I'm needing some [fking professionalism]. Would you be able to [stop acting like a dickhead]?