User talk:PPdd/Archive 2

Información Filosófica

Noslackingnow, if you can cite some good secondary source that mentions this as being notable, or cite some notable publications or authors who published in it, it might change my vote. I don't speak enough Spanish to try to find this myself. PPdd (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

- Thanks PPdd. I added four references - two in Spanish and two in English. (Responding in this way; hope that's OK.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noslackingnow (talk • contribs) 10:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, I'm guessing you haven't run into this yet, but as part of my ongoing meddling with your editing, I thought I'd point out that per WP:NOENG, non-English sources can be used. I always found that point interesting and useful. Those, however, aren't really sources of the appropriate type - they prove that the journal exists, but I don't know if they help it pass notability. They'd need to be integrated with the page to say something about the journal itself, like "IF is the highest-rated non-English philosophy journal in Europe and is well respected". It may, I don't read Spanish. If that's the case, then they should be integrated as inline citations. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources –

“When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page.”

It is best in a footnote, since it will be hard for average future non-editor users to find in the talk page archives, if they even know what a talk page or its archive is. PPdd (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you could verify with those sources... "X random website indexes the journal" is about the best I can manage, and that's only meaningful if X website is itself noteworthy. Even then, I would never argue a medical journal is notable because it is pubmed-indexed. The quote you give is predicated on the page surviving an AFD which is questionable in my opinion. I'd say cross that hurdle if it survives the AFD. If it does and you want to include translations (particularly lengthy ones) there are some talk page templates you could probably use to link to an archive - or just set up a talk page archive specifically for the translations. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I was just trying to be overly keepful to maybe also keep the editor who created the article as a contributor to Wiki. Lasting since 1945 for a philosophy journal is somewhat notable, unlike for journals in some other fields. I tried to help the creating editor by trying to find a better keep basis, but the language barrier stopped me. Do you know how to do a google scholar search in Spanish language publications, to try to help out this editor? If a number of articles are cited by many notable journals, while still not solid, it argues further for a potential and a very weak keep. PPdd (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Oops, my bad, I didn't notice the separate reference. Yes, your suggestion could be implemented on the current page since there's a translated reference. Still seems like something I'd wait to do until after the AFD... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"I didn't want to discourage a contributor" isn't something I've seen at WP:ATA quite yet :) The best advice I can give is to look into Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) and see if it passes that, or the general notability guidelines. Frankly, this one I can't see even a way for finding sources given the language issue. Spanish wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article so no help there. You could try google books for sources, but language is again an issue. If Noslackingnow speaks/reads Spanish, they are the best person to do this kind of work because you and I are useless. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but it still keeps the deletion situation sitting on a fence. "The journal has a... significant history" means different things in different fields. When I saw that a philosophy journal has managed to keep being funded for 65 years I thought, wow, that's notable for a general philosophy journal. But that is still subjective since "significant" is left to editors' discretion in interpretation. I didn't mean "keep the editor" was an argument to keep, just an argument for me to do a little extra work to try to help them find a more solid basis to keep. I am going to try to look into google scholar in spanish searches. I have "rudimentary" (at best) spanish skills from listening to spanish language casettes while driving in the car. PPdd (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(conflicto edito) Sometimes there is no solution unfortunately. AFD is actually much less rule-bound than you would expect, it's valid for people to say "screw WP:N, I think this is inherently notable" but the closing admin would want to see clear consensus. You could always try dropping a note at the philosophy wikiproject. If enough "expert" or at least "interested" contributors there agree with you, it might get a "keep". Keep WP:CANVAS in mind though - short note, but you could say "I think this kind of duration is remarkable for a philosophy journal". It's a fine line, you could post a note on the AFD page pointing there for transparency. I'd also suggest not turning it into a sprawling argument. Again, I'm a hypocrite for saying this. The need to reply to each and every point, to clarify and re-clarify, is akin to the bloodlust of a vampire for me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, "sprawl" on talk pages is my forte. I even wrote my first article about sprawl.[1] (Can I never be serious?) :) PPdd (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(conflicto edito) OK, hay aproximadamente 1,990 resultados en Google Académico para Informacion Filosofica, una indicacion buena para empezar. Whatever that means. :) PPdd (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The real question is, will I ever understand your sense of humour? Empirical evidence says...no. But keep making inscrutable jokes, it's part of your charm. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think the long ones are inscrutable, you should check out the line by line edit summary hidden bombs, where I am confined by conciseness to try to achieve pithyness. And if I was ever scrutable, I'd likely get my block knocked off. :) PPdd (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, oh, I'm seeing red (If red looks blue to you, click on it and you will see you are hallucinating). I'd better go and write a very long and rambling aricle on pithiness. PPdd (talk)

Oh sweet Jebus, please don't. I'm still considering AFD-ing your other "adjective" articles.

Yeah, I believe you about the edit summaries, I finally got around to looking up your original user name. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WT:V

Hi PPdd, I notice you're going at it hammer and tongs at WT:V. I don't have time to look anything over tonight (going to bed soon) but would you like to slow down a bit and wait for my comments? I only offer because sometimes I can translate the community's norms into something a bit easier for newer editors to understand, and it may help you either a) make your case more successfully, or b) understand why it's less of a good idea. Your call, feel free to turn me down. I'm enjoying helping you out and think you're really seeing signs of improving as an editor, but I know it can sometimes feel like you're being babysat. I want to help you out, not drive you crazy so merely say the word and I'll back off.

Also, again witness my hypocritical bleatings - often editors take you less seriously if you post a lot of responses in rapid succession, as it's seen as a form of tendentious editing or ownership. Sadly, this is yet another "do as I say, not as I do". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've found that the best way for me to slow down is to increase from doing ten things at a time to doing twenty. In fact, that is one of my methods to achieve immortality (my moving my birthday to Feb 29, only increased my longevity). Subjective time is essentially the number of things that happen. For example, if one could increase their speed and effciciency, they could get their whole life over with in a short time, then die with the same life as if they went slower. If the number of things done at one time increases more rapidly than the shortening of the time until death, then immortality is achieved! This is an alternative to Newton and Leibnitz' resolution of Xeno's paradox using calculus and convergent series. So I will just take your advice and do as many more things at once as I can, and it will appear to be slowing down in any one of the areas from which I am observed. A similar phenomenon occurs in near death experiences with "one's whole life flashing before them", or at least in my own near death experiences, and in passing out or going to sleep, in which there seems to be an increasing rush of experience before losing track. Pleasant dreams. :) PPdd (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that didn't answer any of my questions. I'll have a look at the page some time today and see if I have any comments, how 'bout? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added a comment to WT:V. The short version? I think it would be nice if all sources were easy to verify, but that's not a requirement of wikipedia and I don't think it should be. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for striking that request, I think you're doing yourself a huge favour. Please take this warning seriously - the community really, really, really hates people who bring unrelated disputes to new pages. It creates huge acrimony, huge drama, and generates a lot of bad feelings that will be directed at you. It's valid to say "On X page I can't personally verify the sources" but it's not valid to say "I'm going to use X page to make a point about the policy I'm trying to change." Just like the community doesn't like people who try to alter policy to support their edits, they don't like people who use acutal pages to score rhetorical points on policies (i.e. WP:POINT). Try changing the policy first, and if you succeed - then change the page or suggest the edit.

Also, sometimes you lose. Sometimes the change you think would really help just lacks support. You make your case as strong as you can, and if no-one agrees you let it go. Sometimes you're beating a dead horse. But eventually you have to review the consensus and either win (i.e. most people agree your change improves things) or lose (you don't get consensus for the change and the policy remains as it is). At some point you have to give up. I think the consensus is clear and probably won't be commenting at WT:V again. You're welcome to keep doing so of course, but eventually people will get bored and leave, or get annoyed and ask you to stop. Being an editor on wikipedia means accepting that other people don't agree and there's naught you can do about it. It sucks, but it happens. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I only made the request for translation because another editor specifically asked how it would be handled for that specific article. It is unfair to cite a specific article as "how could it be done here", which has foreign language sources, making it impossible to respond without a translation, so it was not entirely pointy, but was a request to enable me to respond to the specific point of Fran. I did not know the answer, and could not reply without a translation, I requested a translation in order to reply, which was not entirely pointy, but was a sincere request for a translation needed in order to reply. PPdd (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think things are anywhere near to beating a dead horse. There is clarification of meanings and citation of tensions being provided on all sides, in addition to it becomeing clear that there are more than just two sides. PPdd (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I would suggest asking that editor for their reply on their talk page as a hypothetical, rather than on the article talk page. The former is a polite request for clarification for your information. The latter really looks like an attempt to disrupt in order to make a point. If the former was your intention, it's a valid clarification but one that in the future I suggest you make on a user talk page. You may want to drop Fram a note to politely clarify because to an experienced editor it really, really looks like a WP:POINT problem.

I think you're beating a dead horse, but it's your time so have at thee! Be aware of diminishing returns, and you might want to keep an eye on the irritation level of the contributors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Source

Hola,

I just got a source from the library, and it seems like something you might be interested in [2]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. (Where did "hola" come from, Informacion Filosofica?) :) PPdd (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I like pretending I speak Spanish. Watch: Hola, fajito frijole chipotle, de nada. Hasta yo ciero taco polo ancho.

Lovely language, much better than Italian. Italian sounds like someone gargling gravel and battery acid. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You're not supposed to listen to Italian. You're supposed to watch the hand gestures. I learned to say that I am crazy in about 40 languages, with a claim that it was the only expression needed to get by in almost any country in the world. For Italian, I would bow while pointing my right index finger at my right temple and moving it in a crazy person circle as I said I am pazzo. It's the gesture that counts. In spanish, I came up with a test that showed I understood the subtleties of the language better than a person who actually spoke it. I would say, "Soy loco pero no estoy loco", which appears to say "I am crazy but I am not crazy", to the puzzlement of the spanish speaker. Then I would point out that "soy" means "I am" regarding a permanent state, whereas "estoy" is used for a temporary state. PPdd (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note

Hi PPdd, this is just a very quick note about this edit (nothing of substance to your substance). You frequently mention your schooling history and personal experience - nothing wrong with that at all. This goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway and you'll see why) but no-one's personal experience or knowledge is ever enough to adjust a page or "win" a dispute (obviously, WP:OR and WP:PSTS). I don't think you'd ever do that, I think you're being conversational. However, it will remind experienced editors of the Essjay controversy (see also WP:ESSJAY). I'm really just leaving this here to fill you in on a bit of Wikipedia history that does have an impact today. In fact, I mostly point it out so if someone points to Essjay, you can state that's not your intention. I know it never is (not that I've ever seen anyway) but this gives you some warning of another wrinkle within the community's norms. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely understand your point. My intent was at self depreacating humor, with an intended secong level of humor for people who were "inside" my circle of real life acquaintances and would recognize one of the stories and know who I was, then literally roll their eyes because it was really dumb, then read my first joke-ometer example and realize it just applied to them, creating a third level joke and then really roll their eyes, whence the sharp pencil would be applicable, creating a fourth level joke. You will have to admit that having the only description of a person in a student newspaper front page story re lectures being, "does standup", is sort of like saying "he's such a flambouyant clown, and everyone knows it, that we don't even need to mention his name or describe him any further". I try to keep things pretty vague as to self description, and any such mentions were either clearly self deprecating humor or insider flags to people who knew me so they would recognize me from the real life story, since my background to anyone who knows me is unique enough to warrant a "definite article" ala Russell's analyisis. (If you don't know beginner's logic, you will have no idea what I just said. If you do, it will make sense. If you do and you know me, there is another layer, as I just said something true and made a subtle joke. Note that "subtle" is not the same as "good". (I view humor as akin to a problem in logic, with "getting the punchline equivalent in emotive effect to the feeling of that QED moment, and I use the same language style, so - Hint: I collect and wear vintage clothing, and was wearing a highly noticibly cardinal red college sweater from the 1920's with a big letter "A" sewn on it and a department person asked in front of everyone, "why are you wearing cardinal colors with an "A" on it, when this is stanf? To which I replied, "I exist but I am not unique.")) I was hoping as a long shot that if this happened, I might get an email from an old acquaintance saying "your jokes geep getting more and more ridiculous". As to "frequently", if you've been following as an "ousider", you may notice a certain repetitiousness of stories that (due to the finitude of any peron's life, and the particular shallowness of mine), might induce you to think, "hey wait a minute, that's just the same story as you told eslsewhere, but with an absurdly preposterous spin so as to create the appearance of diversity of background", at which case you too will roll your eyes, and may need to borrow that sharp pencil, at which "point" you will no longer be able to self describe as an "outsider" or "insider", but rather maybe "inside outer", but if that happens and you figure out who I am, please don't be an "outer" and say anything to identify me, as clowns have many serious enemies (see Felini's La Strada, for example... and yes, I really did leave stanford to join a circus and was, much later, substitute teacher for the cirque du solei travelling clown class). :) PPdd (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course, I know that point was self-deprecation. I just wanted you to be aware of the Essjay incident, and how it colours some editors' interpretations of real life qualifications. I don't consider that example, or any other I've seen, as problematic. But when you're making jokes to people who don't know you either here or in real life, they might interpret any reference to accolades and qualifications as an attempt to claim expertise. In your case, the examples I've seen, they'd pretty much have to want to do it in the first place. It's a minor point to be aware of. And for that matter, while editing if someone claims "trust me, I'm a doctor/lawyer/engineer/scientist/acupuncturist", knowing about the Essjay controversy is also handy 'cause you can say "First, really? Second, who cares?" It's a point any serious editor should be aware of and since I saw allusions to real-life education in your comments I thought I'd bring it up in an informative way before someone brought it up in a critical way. Don't stop doing it by any means, there's utterly no problem that I can see. It's just so you know. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now I see your point. I usually actually intend the stories to operate on a few levels, one being to be true and at the same time not believed (I love that look on people's face when they come to that QED moment of "that particular unbelievable story is really true?! sheesh"; another to be unbelievable so as not to be outed; another to be an "outsider" self-deprecation joke as something to the effect of "if this guy is trying to brag, he worded it in a way that he just shot mimself in the foot". and a fourth to be for insiders" to think "oh, no. not him again, and now he's doing it online. the ear plugs I got to deal with this guy wont work now that he's doing his substandard-humor online". :)

Incidentally, something no one seems to have noticed is that when I do my meticulous line by line with line by line edit summaries, that make everyone look at it as a giant block, I usually pepper the edit summaries with localized humor as to the edit, as a reward for anyone who actually looks at things step by step (they may think "punishment" is more apt than "reward"). PPdd (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If anyone seriously acuses me of "Essjayism", evidence of my prior knowledge of, and therefore intended humorous self deprecating use of, argument by authority, is that I previously put name dropping and argument by authority in the notability article I started. PPdd (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• This all leads to my anthropic principal using, name dropping, multi level, self referential, simulteneously simple and convoluted, first essay - Wikipedia:Essjayism. PPdd (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty good idea for an essay. Surprisingly brief :P

Frankly, given the amount of text you post it's a wonder any of it gets read, let alone the edit summaries on top of things. Double :P WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

My first significant essay/policy/procedure edit was only three words long, which seems to be slowly gaining popularity[3]. My second contribution to an essay follows from a reference to WP:CREEP by WAID, made to me in arguing against my proposed addition to MEDRS, and from reading talk page discussions in which I was mentioned. I made it to summarize lessons I hope I learned[4]. Thanks for your teaching time and I hope I have not wasted it. PPdd (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if Nike will claim WP:COPYRIGHT issues...You can't take that much credit though, many of those incoming links predate your edit by years. :P WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right. There is nothing new under the sun. And I would say my failure to notice that was a symptom of narcissistic disorder, but megalomaniacs like myself look down on narcissists as mere amateurs. PPdd (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Practicing Essjayism

WLU, I just remembered a time I really did practice WP:Essjayism. I saw a Butoh dance “performance” in a cave in Japan on a PBS documentary. Fascinated, I called PBS and was referred to Japan. I was referred back to Berkeley. It turned out that the most famous Butoh dancer in the world had to flee Japan because he had taken LSD with a Zen priest and two astronauts who had walked on the moon (two of the later ones), and the Japanese government shut down the Zen monastery and had arrest warrants for the participants. By coincidence, I had just had an affair with the young American girlfriend of the Japanese Zen priest involved, who was also the best friend of the dancer and fled to America with him. I arrived at the dancer’s home and found controlled pandemonium. There was simultaneously a dance workshop, a dress rehearsal for a performance in San Fran, a photo shoot, an interview with a dance magazine, food preparation, a music rehearsal, and a newspaper reporter had just arrived. I am an amateur 20th century musicologist and play classical arias on the saw, and the dancer immediately sized me up and nick named me Beethoven. She said, “Beethoven, do interview”, and pointed to the newspaper reporter. Knowing nothing about Butoh dance, but quickly getting the idea from the pandemonium that it was not just dance, but a nonstop lifestyle of performance, I did the interview and basically just made the whole thing up, based on what I was observing going on behind the reporter. That interview turned out to be somewhat seminal, and I became known as a dance and semiotic gesture expert, a role I actually worked hard to appropriately fill. So, practicing Essjayism. :) PPdd (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

TCM

Looks like you've taken on quite a lot at TCM. The placebo effect requires faith, and Wikipedia tends to question things like faith, (in spite of wp:agf). Those championing the cause of alternate medicine might consider this a necessary arena in which to preserve their ... "art". I respect your courage. Not being able to read the native languages of the "art", but having to accept non-English RS's per WP:NOENG puts you at a disadvantage.

Please be careful, since it is much easier for him/them to show a 3RR violation than it is for you to show puppetry. Also, Wikipedia is not fair. The issue might escalate to a Wikipedian who thinks the poster for Clark and Stanley's Snake Oil remarkably unChinese, which would make the person warring for its inclusion the vandal. ( The fight I'm not looking forward to is the argument that the image of the whole tiger is inappropriate since only a small part is used. In response, a picture of the part gets posted and not censored.) If you think the regulars at one or more of the projects TCM belongs to will help stabilize things, asking for help might be a good idea. (While he/they don't seem like the sort to use policy, asking for help from more than one would give you some protection from accusations of votestacking, forum shopping, etc. It also might get more involvement, which might or might not be good for stability. BitterGrey (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding translations, there is actually a vote going on right now at Wikipedia_talk:VERIFY#Comments on requiring translations of foreign language sources, especially hard copies. You might want to weigh in with whatever you think.

One tricky editor put in almost all hard-copy-Chinese-language sources for extensive edits. How can one possibly tell if it is RS if it is in Chinese, even if passages are quoted and translated? His edits are also quite POV, like insisting that American Cancer Society is not RS to say that 365 acupuncture poits are based on the number of days in a year, because his Chinese source says there is only a "correspondence", as if there were coincidentally 365 acupuncture points discovered, and then they later notice a coincidental correspondence with number of days per year, all in a context of believing in astrology for everything else.

There is even an editor with no edits except a handful in TCM alt med stuff, who sudeenly "volunteered" out of the blue at talk that I am not pro alt med or pro-TCM", but instead "I am an allopathic medicine student", or some such give-themselves away language. That's the very first med student I ever heard describe themselves as an "allopathic medicine student". Sheesh. Talk about a dumb disguise! Reminds me of a pre-teenager who gets stoned, sees a cop, and walks over to try to prove to the cop they are not stoned, when the cop would not otherwise have noticed them. PPdd (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That is would be a pretty dumb disguise, but also an easy decoy. While it takes some intelligence to come across as intelligent, it doesn't take stupidity to come across as dumb. Having a smart login and a dumb login would make the sockpuppetry harder to expose. The cop with the volunteer stoner wouldn't have to consider this. Thanks for the tip about the discussion at verifiability: I'll look into it when I have time to get up to speed on the discussion. Again, be careful. Wikipedians with good motivations tend to burn out fast, leaving mostly other categories with other motivations. BitterGrey (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"it takes some intelligence to come across as intelligent, it doesn't take stupidity to come across as dumb" and "other categories with other motivations" - Bittergrey. Nice. :) PPdd (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see (http://www.acaom.org/accprgsdaom.asp). You asked for an apology for implying bad faith, then you deleted a perfectly good page based on either misreading my link or choosing to ignore. That's not good RS. I'll apologize if you check ACAOM's site then revert your erroneous assertions about the DAOM page and put it back up. If not that's ok, wiki has already consumed too much of my timeBrendan.mattson (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked the link and it only talked about masters degrees. So I redirected the page to where you got your own DAOM. The DAOM page as it was only had sources about accrediting "masters degrees" and not doctorates, so it made your own DAOM look like less than it is, since only one university is accredited to grant a DAOM, and that is where yours is from. I have not mentioned anything about this to keep your identity unrevealed, but I did direct you to where you can get your username changed in my first suggestion to you on the list I gave you on your talk page. PPdd (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern with my anonymity. Please check the link one more time, 3 institutions accredited, 4 in candidacy. It was an ok page.Brendan.mattson (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I misunderstood that it was a link for the discussion forum, which I thought should be put on my own talk page so I could delete it to preserve anyone's anonymity, since the SP report page is preserved forever as an archive.

The link on the DAOM page that I found only discusses a "masters degree", and the university you have your doctorate from says at its wenpagte that it is the only accredited university for doctorates, so I redirected the DAOM page to the univerity page. Incidentally, when I had shiatsu massage with auricular moxy, it looked exactly like that picture, room, wall hangings, candle, blouse, medicine bottle (massage oil bottle), and all, except the woman who did it had both shoulders exposed (and kept accidentally rubbing her loose frilly blouse on my face while leaning over me, which itched), but she was a 65ish looking former hippie with sagging skin and stringy straight brown hair with grey streaks. I believe that she thought the dress style looked conservative as well as professional, as others at the clinic had similar dress style, which I call "new age conservative". PPdd (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That is hilarious! Maybe I should institute "new age conservative fridays" at work!Brendan.mattson (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Couln't hurt. But check out my personal no shirt no shoes stanford oral quals anecdote here[5] before you listen to any of my advice. If you ever need a test subject for a massage class or experiment, I hereby volunteer. I will be happy even as a test subject who gets the placebo massage. PPdd (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you please restore the DAOM page? Or direct me where to do it? The ACAOM link is a legitimate (the legitimate) source that shows both accredited and candidate institutions for both Masters and Doctorate programs. The current redirect advantages Bastyr (I have no problem with that personally, its a great school!) over the other 2 accredited DAOM programs. ThanksHerbxue (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. PPdd (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of IMO (in my opinion)

A tag has been placed on IMO (in my opinion), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

duplicates content found in wikitionary as simple definition of IMO

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Warfieldian (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Here ya go

It's refreshing to have a nice and civil discussion every now and then. Have a cookie!

Yaksar has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Gee, thanks. There goes my diet! (How many times does that cookie have to be right on top of that same diet joke?. Poor cookie.) :) PPdd (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about your AN3 report

What did you mean by 'clemency requested' at WP:AN3#Brendan.mattson reported by PPdd (Result: )? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I explained more at WP:AN3#Brendan.mattson reported by PPdd (Result: ). Its a clear 3RR and SP violation, but I requested clemency. But the editor shouldn't leave thinking everyone at WP thinks lightly of this kind of thing, and he won't get permanently blocked with another SP violation followed by a 3RR. PPdd (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Standard policy is that bans are not punitive, only preventative. If Brendan understands the issue, then there is no need for a ban or block and it would actually be against policy to give one. See: WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. Ocaasi (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I definitely understand the issue now, not only the rules I didn't understand but also the appropriate approach and assumptions of good faith. Can someone make my name not red anymore :)?Brendan.mattson (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Inadvertent talk page stalker here, pardon me for intruding. To turn your name blue, simply click it, which will start off a new page, your Userpage. Add anything in and save it, and you're good to go!--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!Brendan.mattson (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV ≠ "no more fun", or, proof of the existence of God

Thanks to all of the editors teaching me the meaning of NPOV. I first thought, "oh no, no humor in the articles". But then among all the shit at WP:Commons I found an image of actual raw flying squirrel feces for the Traditional Chinese Medicine article. QED. PPdd (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey PPdd, thanks for leaving the note about the changes to the tcm-theory-section at my talk page. Not really necessary, but very polite. Cheers, Mallexikon (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Page move

The page "Wikipedia:Redink" has been moved to "User:PPdd/Redink." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

re: sincerity

No offense taken. My first two comments probably shouldn't be taken as my literal reasoning. You just happened to call me on it on the one reply where I truly didn't get the reasoning on the proposed name.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I responded to you at the talk page. :) PPdd (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey PPdd, I just wanted to thank you for all the effort you have put into the TCM page. How do you have time to sleep!!? ; ) I'm glad that someone is trying so hard to flush out all the information. However, I ask that you be more open in your allowance of edits. It's understandable that you feel some attachment to certain wording or style, etc given all the time you have put in, but i would direct you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN. There are many people for whom TCM is their life. That does not mean these people are unable to provide NPOV or operate in good faith. It may be best to use their extensive schooling to help make the article better, and perhaps even defer to their greater knowledge of the subject matter once in a while. Provided proper sources of course. Your cherry picking of sources, and deletion of material added from those same sources, is coming off as a little POV and Pointed. I'm trying my hardest to work with you, by posting on talk pages before making edits, and respecting statements I know to be false if they have RS, but honestly my most sincere intentions are being eroded by your rapid changes, deletions and accusations. I would like to continue to improve wiki but after only one week I already feel myself burning out. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Calus (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Here is what the article you have says, among other things. "in contemporary China, some such as placenta, nails, child's urine, ashen hair, licorice in human feces, and urinary sediment are still used and included in recent textbooks and handbooks".
• So you were well aware that "human parts" was in the article, and not only things derived from them. Yet you wasted a huge amount of my time being disruptive and pretending there were no human parts ever used.
• Then after you caved on that after a few hours of disrupion on your part, you were well aware that human parts are in current use per the article, yet you tried to make it look like thie was not true and only a historical curiosity, and again you wasted a huge amount of my time pretending something was not true when you knew it was. There is a name for people who do that, then have the gall to come and pretend like nothing happened. Sorry, but it is clear what your group's purpose at WP is. PPdd (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find that sentence in the article: please tell me where you found that. The statement that this is currently taught is ABSURD. this is from the second paragraph: "This chapter will offer a historical-ethical study of the Chinese knowledge and practice of “human drugs;” i.e. drugs derived from the human body. About three dozen human drugs, which include hair, finger- nails, placenta, urine, bone, flesh, blood, menstrual blood, seminal fluid, and the penis, have been recorded in Chinese materia medica." IF you read the article you will see it is a historical oddity. I would be happy to copy and paste the whole article if you like. I think you are just trying to be mean and vindictive at this point due to a mistaken notion that you own the material on the page. Calus (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

PS I did not "cave" on anything. I do not know why you are trying to be argumentative. This is not a debate with any winner. The source currently being discussed was NOT cited prior. I still stand by my prior assessment that no human body parts are listen in any modern Materia MedicaCalus (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You spent hours of talk page time arguing that TCM does not use human and animal parts, and that the article did not say "parts", then when you found out I had the article, you caved and admitted that penises and bones and fingernails are human parts, not processed deriviatives. Then you went on to edit war after being warned not to. PPdd (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, since you said I was making TCM sound like "cannibalism" because they ingest food and human parts for qi energy purposes, I found RS for the word and put it in. PPdd (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you admit to being argumentative and trying to make a POINT by putting in the word cannibalism. I would point out that only someone who never leaves WP would refer to talk pages in terms of wasting hours of talk page time. Why do you insist on being argumentative and try to punish me by making TCM sound absurd, with use of loaded words like cannibalism. I love you. I am completely open to saying something properly sourced. I'm glad you found an article about use of penis historically; I learned something from that. What I do not appreciate is that you used that article to try and make a point and say things not in the article. Calus (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

*(1) Cannibalism - Actually, you were the one who made a good point. After you made it, I wondered why that was not in the article, and I checked and there are huge numbers of RS sources for it. It is kind of obvious to be in the article, but I wouldn't have thought of it if you had not pointed it out.

• (2) Pao alchemy - You also pointed out how important pao alchemy preparation is, and I looked it up and they cook mercury in their medicines. The cooking is probably even more dangerous than taking the stuff.
• (3) Penis and liquorice in human feces, etc. - You and Herb were the ones who complained there were not more than human part used, only placenta. I looked it up and immediately found an article with lots of parts used and currently taught to be used.
• (4) I think that's called Karma. PPdd (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As a Buddhist, I'm well aware of the notion of Karma, and this whole experience is creating a lot which needs to be worked off. You are misrepresenting facts and the order of events. Any same person who looks at the history will agree. As it stands I will merely watch this weekend to see how things play out. I imagine you will find just enough rope to hang yourself. Calus (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternative medicine talk page

Are you saying that you just posted it there because you thought it was funny? That's not what talk pages are for. If you find a source we can use to improve an article, it's a good idea to discuss it on the article talk. If you find a source with a particular wording, and you know it can't be used to improve an article but think it's funny, there's a lot of things you can do, some even on-wiki (like telling a wikipedian who in your opinion will get and appreciate the joke on their user talk, or, if you want a broader audience, start a humor subpage in your userspace and list it at our ‘Department of Fun’), but don't try to discuss it at article talks. When you post there, people will presume that you want the material incorporated in the article, and you'll probably get the answers I gave you in the first version of this section. For meatpuppet problems at an article, you can post at WP:ANI to get some admin attention on it, but you have to be sure there's an actual problem or you may end up shooting yourself in the foot. While you're still new-ish, you're not a new editor more than two months of daily(?) editing, so other editors will expect you to know your way around here by now (at least I do). --Six words (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No. (Although it would be funny if it were not deadly aconite.) It was in response to an editor's deletion of TCM as an example of pseudoscience, by arguing that no one in TCM ever claims it to be a science. I did not remember which talk page the objection was stated on, pseudoscience or alt med, so I put it on both talk pages. There are separate issues of the OR and nonV nature of the pseudoscience lead, and common sense synth OR used in its def, which are raised in this example from TCM. PPdd (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop using SP/MP label without justification

I would like to ask you to stop using the SP/MP label for the editor's at TCM. You keep bringing it up on the TCM talk page and the etiquette page in response to an editor that was not even involved in the initial kerfuffle over the "acu and moxing" photo. You repeatedly refer to every other editor at TCM as an "admitted SP/MP" which you know is misleading and untrue. "Jdaybreak" is the only account that I admitted to creating in an effort to switch to an anonymous username (only after that did you direct me towards the process for changing username, which I did, thank you :)). You then accused me of being a sock for a defunct account that I created years ago to do only one thing - start the D.A.O.M. page, then I never used that account again (no log-ins in years and no contributions). You keep exploiting my newbie mistake, making it seem like there is a vast conspiracy against you that simply does not exist.

I don't know how much more transparent I can be. You keep bringing it up as though it justifies your undoing anybody else's edits. Every single other name that you named in your sock puppet investigation has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. You have reacted quite strongly to being accused of editing TCM in bad faith, but you flippantly use the pejorative SP without really having a good reason. You should AGF about these other editors. So please stop insulting these people and wrongly associating them with a mistake that I admittedly made on WP.Herbxue (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fess up. The group had 5 Socks/Meats shut down already! And other members claim that they do not know each other and are not discussing "strategy" re WP on social network pages. PPdd (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I have not planned anything with anyone other than to tell fb friends "look how bad the TCM page is". I already fessed up. The rest you messed up. :)Herbxue (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Herbxue, the original SP/MP business is a thing of the past. What is still relevant is your COI. Your knowledge as an expert is useful, but it also means you can financially benefit from the way the article reads. Just be careful. Throwing around orders and accusations will only get you banned. Express your concerns in a factual manner using RS and don't comment on other editors' motives. Doing so only digs your own grave. We'd rather keep you around.

PPdd, make sure you log in all the time. Editing from IPs is not allowed when you have an account. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That last statement is absolutely false. Only certain known sock-puppeteers are required not to edit from IPs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

My laptop logs me on automatically. Socks are no fun, since when I make one of my idiotic comments, if I had a sock, the sock would get all the notoriety for idiocy that I should get the credit for. What fun is that? Also, one has to wash your socks, but I never bathe. :) PPdd (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It just causes confusion and violates our rule against seeking to "avoid the scrutiny of other editors". Your tendency have fun here and make jokes is also getting you into trouble more and more, so please be more careful. Yes Arthur, of course there are exceptions (duh!), but the basic rule is still to use one account, and when you have a registered one, then use it. There is no legitimate exception in this case. Accidental log outs do happen, and I'm not talking about that. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

My own saying- "Life has no meaning, but it has a purpose... to win the joke. And 'he who laughs last' does not win, he loses, since he did not tell the last joke... unless he is laughing at himself." I left stanf after 11 years and joined an (obscure) circus, and ended (substitute) teaching the clown class for cirque du solei. That's why cirque is so stupid and not very funny. :) PPdd (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, your joking manner is getting in the way of dealing with what is a serious situation. This is a workplace where we are creating an encyclopedia. Respond seriously. Your credibility is your most important currency here and you're damaging it. Stop replying to serious matters by joking. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Request at AN/I

Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Problems at Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).The discussion is about the topic Traditional Chinese medicine. Regards, —Six words (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PPdd for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, you do realize how it looks that you claim to be editing from the same internet cafe as the editor involved in your SPI, and after you accused others of meatpuppetry? There's an old essay called WP:BROTHER, which addresses the common excuse that 'my little brother did the vandalism while I wasn't looking'. It doesn't sound very plausible. Then again, little about your background does, which is why you're either completely screwed, or completely unique. Ocaasi (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Good advice. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do, lie about it? I have found that is always the worst thing to do. (I was invited to teach Ethics at MIT i 20007, a bizarre story in itself, related to neuroethics, MIT psychiatric abuse of the faculty, autism, and my own whackiness. I had come up with a measure of complexity and simplicity to base ethics on, related to the tangled "web" we weave when first we practice to decieve with a "LIE", and the inconsistency of general relativity and quantum physics. It was an alternaqtive to what I called Mill's Utility being Risk and game theory, and Kant's Categorical Imperative being symmetery relations plus consistency, sort of like "Be not like the hypocrrites" logical consitency crossed with "do unto others as onto yourself" symmetry.) (After posting at Ocaasi' page as to how to diffuse things, I walked away to cool off, and I whined to Danieli (that's her real life nick). When I came back after several hours, I immeditaly was going to her talk page to disclose this, but found a message notice on my own talk page, a posted SOCK notice waqrning at my talk. She probably would not have come in except that Ludwigs2, after a series of persopnal attacks and threats against me and the TCM article content and RS for it, accused me of being "fascinated with the penis", which she agreed with so wholeheartedly (I admitted I knew her intimately), that she came back to WP after leaving because of this exact kind of thing. I actually expected her to attack me in jest, as an inside joke only for me, pretending to be my foe (she is, in that she believed in TCM to some extent), but she actually made reasoned discussion. I think Calus has once more shot himself in the foot, by going to her page and trying to bully her into accepting what she views as attempted censorship and whitewashing. Her real name is easliy found in newpaper articles on the internet, and Ludwigs2 is making this case in bad faith, after threatening to make "political" problems for me, refuse to discuss edits at TCM talk, start an edit war, censor the article, and dupe other into coming in to back himself up, using his sophisticated political skills. He spreads his threats and incivility around so as to be hard to percieve, but apparetly admin Sandsteing saw through this ruse, and blocked him for his intentionally diffuse threats. Weeks ago, he advised other SPA/COI-practioiners as to how he planned to vandlaize TCM and remove "alternative anatomy' and physiology, alchemy, supernatural qi, TCM essential non-heart pumping driven but qi-force- self-propelled-blood, and images that accurately depict what TCM is in an instant, images so revealing that they shock the west but would not be blinked at by a Chinese. Note that Herbxue outright lied about sock/meat coming from his undisclosed "discussion forum" as link he would not provide and a story he kept changing. Finally, his grad student Calus provided the link[6], as to why the 10 new account socks/meats showed up, to show why he also showed up, and wy Herbxue showed up. Note that the posting date of the forum is AFTER they showed up responding to it! Ah, the reasoning skills of alt med preactitioners. I hope someone can see through this and do something about it. PPdd (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

An additional problem is that she is afraid to log on and reply, since her only access it where I am now editing, and using my computer, since she did not bring hers today (she usually reads paper books), which will only worsen the artificial storm Ludwigs2 created to carry out his censorship threat and threats against me. I once thought he was well reasoned and had a helpful alternative POV, ... and was sincere. PPdd (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, few people have the time, patience, or interest to follow all of these details, which is why KISS is often better advice than anything else (I follow the details, and with some interest, but most will not). Ludwigs is well reasoned and sincere, but he gets impatient with stuff that looks trivial to him or which embarks on extraneous adventures, and once he loses patience he is not at his best. So you two were bound to be a clash of styles. Regardless of whether Calus is at fault here or not, the back and forth between you two is kicking up a lot of dust and at the least you both look dirty. If you can, go back to focusing on content, preferably in a non-controversial area for a few days, and if you can't, perhaps try a little break (not as an admission of guilt, but just as a brief respite) . Wikipedia is not going anywhere. We'd rather see you be an enduring editor than a flash in the pan. Ocaasi (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. When WLU suggested I break from acupunture article, I did, and have not really gone back. The problem with breaking now at TCM is that I am just about to tie the entire article together with TCM symptom theory and numerology, which is the basis of the medicines in the list I included, so as to have an example of each and every diagnostic basis, which will add as a percentage very little more, but has been missing from the article since its inception, and without it, there will likely be a claim of "consenus" to CFORK the medicines to "keep the dirty little secret" not noticed, as goes on all over their websites. It was not reasonable for Ludwigs2 to come in and delete ALL of the "alterntive anatomy" and physiology, supernatural qi-pumped (not heart pumped ) blood, the essence of TCM theory, the alchemy upon which th emedicines are based, the astrology used in making the medicines and diagnosis, changing "medicines are 75% of practice" to other wording to delete the mdicines he has objected to including for mohths, and especially not reasonable to have WP:BAITed two days ago with a declaretoin he would make major MOS violating style changes and content deletions without discussing or getting consensus at talk first, and had some kind of political savvy to dupe others into supporting him in doing so, and threatening me if I objected. Not very reasonable or sincere in my book. PPdd (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A clarification: I haven't looked at TCM ever, so I didn't see yours or Ludwigs or anyone else's edits. I'm only referring to what's been happening on talk pages. Your plan to list examples of "every" diagnostic basis may be more comprehensive than is appropriate for a general encyclopedia. Keep the article an approachable length and format or else it should be forked. Forking is completely permitted and in fact required for complex and lengthy topics. Forks are only not ok when they are POV forks. Even a forked article will have a summary identifying its main points and linking directly to it. See: WP:FORK, WP:POVFORK, and WP:SUMMARY. I don't know what Ludwigs deleted, but again, draft it, and then you won't have to deal with this. All of these articles are under Pseudoscience sanctions, and consensus is more or less required before inserting content anyway. If there isn't consensus, you should expect WP:BRD as the norm. Ocaasi (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There was consensus throught months of silence as content was added step by step without objection, until the SPA/COIs came in and tried to make WP "present a helpful image of TCM", for their own financial gain. I did not "plan" to list them all. I picked the list item by item from the most used or most talked about, and it turned out when it looked too "list like" to me, before anyone complained, I went to trim it, and noticed that it pretty much exemplified the symptom-diagnosis theory based on numerology and alchemy, a section I am still working on. So I have been trying to make sense of that theory enough to put it in simple English. From all my experience and research, I think the article as it is now, especially the images and list, really gives the flavor of TCM. In fact, if a Chinese person read it they would just think it was an article about TCM, but an American is aghast. TCM is a random list of superstitious whacky things. PPdd (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE is the weakest form of consensus. Numerous editors expressed a level of disbelief and discomfort with your pace. Many stood by and watched until there was time to figure out what was going on. COI is one of the most abused policies we have. You're allowed to edit if you have a COI, you're just not allowed to edit stupidly. But neither is anyone else. COI allegations are almost never productive, nor are SP/MP allegations, nor are almost any other kind of allegation. Just because TCM practitioners want the article to reflect their personal understanding of the practice and its dignity doesn't mean they are 'just in it for the money'. PPdd, you're not supposed to be personally making the article reflect symptom-diagnosis theory based on anything. You're supposed to be using sources which have already done this and just summarizing them. Working in areas where you have a lot of personal knowledge is always risky, because even when you are right-on, you don't have sources ready to back up your points. TCM is not just a random list of superstitious whacky things, it is a centuries-old cultural tradition in which a list of remedies has become linked to different symptoms based on a complicated mix of mythology and herbalism. Your job is not to criticize TCM or to make it look bad. Just present it richly and while reporting on how scientists and the public view it. NPOV is not to be confused with NPO-ME. Ocaasi (talk)

{{od}Thanks. I tried to WP:ENEMY write by going to pro TCM cites and looked at what they presented, then looked for RS to back it up. Ludwigs2 took the first half of that last sentence to make a deliberately spurious claim that I was using TCM sites as RS. That is not rational nore sincere. It is an attempt to deliberately dupe and manipulate other editors. I am embarassed to ever have referred beginning alt med pros to him for editing advice, as he is certainly not in good faith taking half a sentence to present as an example. That is blantantly dishonest. (When I write, instead of talk and gesture, it might look like I am actually angry, but I take everything with as much levity and humor as possible. That's why I like pictures. You of all will like this - I used to be a political cartoonist for three years... really. I actually did two sort of famous ones (out of hundreds of failures), one of which you might even recall if I got more specific, which I will not.) :) PPdd (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right that Ludwigs' confusion of TCM sites with RS backing what they say was off. But your approach with WP:Enemy seems to have had you "go native", a risk any time one immerses in another group. Even better than writing for the enemy is writing for the reader. Help them understand the complexity and nuance of the subject in a way which is accessible, comprehensive, and unbiased. Ocaasi (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Advice

• Tell Ludwigs you didn't appreciate his comments, but you'll drop it.
• Tell Calus you thought he was an MP but don't care as long as you can get back to improving the article
• Tell Herbxue you are interested in his background and will stop the accusations as long as you can all get back to editing
• No more 3RR posts, no more ANI posts, no more SPI posts, for at least 2 weeks. If these issues are ongoing, others will step in.
• No more policy-violation pronouncements. No more comments about other editors. Your tone of aggravation makes it unclear who is the problem.

Just go back to doing what you did the first few weeks you were here, although perhaps with a bit less speed (unless it's on a talk or draft page). If this doesn't seem achievable right now, I recommend a brief break to raise the probability of your longevity. I know you are a tireless person, but you are getting distracted, and others are losing patience due to the hullabaloo. Yes, I said hullabaloo. Ocaasi (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. "It can't hurt to try." (I can't believe I just said that, since my life is a series of empirical refutatoins of that sentence.) :) PPdd (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I second Ocaasi's good advice. If you back off, other editors who actually share your concerns may feel compelled to step in, but as long as you are a glutton for punishment, they'll likely let you get beaten to death. A martyr's death here is forgotten rather quickly. It's pointless. Take a break and see what happens. I have actually seen pseudoscience editors end up going so far that they hung themselves and exposed their real purpose. I've also seen them go too far and realize it and stop, even recognizing that other POV needed better representation. It all ends up balancing in the end. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I draw your attention once more to advice number 5. Repeating sockpuppet, meatpuppet, no-agf, wikipolitics, or any other non-content related claims--even if they are historical now--is keeping the fire going. Ocaasi (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard

This is an extremely contentious article. Recently, a new editor completely rewrote it and updated the article in one edit as a fait accompli. However, it was so well-written and neutral that it rapidly went through the featured article process and appeared on the main page as "today's featured article," in time for the subject's centenary on the 13th. I mention this because it might be an approach to consider for future major revisions of controversial articles you may undertake. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I could never be that competent, and I actually like being written over. It helps me gain new perspective, and I especially like perspectives and information that I had not thought of or seen before. I just don't like an undue use of UNDUE, to effectively censor information, deciding that information they don't like is not needed by others. Also, my style taste is very minority in two ways. First, I like an extremely outlined form, with so much information in the section and subsection headers that one could read only the table of contents and understand a subject; I like the writing style of philosopher and historian of science Ian Hacking. Second, my favorite encyclopedias are all titles something like "An illustrated Encyclopedia of ..." . I like to be able to look only at images in sequence and have a grasp of a subject. I used to be a political cartoonist and was fascinaated by the amount of information that could be contained in a simple image rife with content rquiring conceptual processing. My least favorite book I have read is Kai Lai Chung's first year doctoral probability text, Chung boasting of having succeeded to write it without needing any diagrams at all, and all that Bourbaki stuff? But thanks for what appears to be a vote of confidence. PPdd (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, I'm not familiar with that case since I don't follow along much on the $cientology articles, even though they are among the current 5,688 pages (plus their talk pages) on my main watchlist. What happened in that case? It's a huge violation of consensus and collaboration to do that, and is a slap in the face to all the good faith work of other editors. Did others just feel too intimidated to bother to revert back and deal with the changes a bit at a time, per BRD? That would be what normally happens. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Brangifer, I'm relying on the discussion around its appearance on the main page. I am pretty impressed with the result, but I'd be curious to know your opinion.

PPdd, I read Hacking's The Emergence of Probability and The Social Construction of What? a couple of years ago and own Representing and Intervening and Historical Ontology, and am pretty sure I've got The Taming of Chance somewhere; but I haven't read them yet. I'm particularly interested in his take on the social construction (or not) of mental illness but have yet to read Rewriting the Soul and Mad Travellers. I like his style of exposition too; and I agree that a picture, or succession of pictures can be very valuable to an article. I've possibly never heard of Bourbaki.

But getting back to L. Ron Hubbard, I understand you find it a more enjoyable experience to edit in article space, many others seem to find it distressing. Give some thought to the possibility of doing the majority of your revision elsewhere, if it's a significant revision to a controversial article, for the sake of general tranquility. How you introduce your version to the article's denizens would be crucial, of course. Perhaps you could look at how the L. Ron Hubbard author did it. I'll chase up those diff's when this bout of indolence passes. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Anthonycole, its good to know editors backgrounds for communication. I was just commenting to II that every other WP editor is a phil of math person. Makes you feel like home, eh? I only read Hacking's stuff on Probability and on Statistical Inference (and I do not agree with him on the latter). I have not read his social construction of mentall illness... yet, but will on your recommendation. I was invited out to mit to lecture on neuroethics in 2007 (and got kicked out, when I figured out how to reverse infer the number of faculty who were permanent drug addicts via psychiatric abuse, without violating confidentiality, based on institue budget aalysis). I based my hypothesis there on observing the number of such at caltech, where it appeared that every faculty member and their family was in such a situation, even their 10 year olds were given antidepressants when the faculty member was stressed at work! Your Hacking reference is right up my alley. I was Patrick Suppes' student (note the singular- "student"; only one grad student showed up at his phil of prob "class", but lots of international visiting faculty and Berkeley faculty did.) and he switched recently to an almost neuroethics-only research stance. I also do volunteer work with adults with autism, and am facinated by them, and with their ethics. One theory is that they lack a philosophy of mind, and cannot anticipate what is in the mind of others. So they cannot lie in order to decieve as a result. But they are given drugs to make them more "normal". My resulting joke is that they are drugged to try to make them liars, like everyone else. So the Hacking referral re "social construction of mental illness" sounds like right up my alley. I am laid up and do not have access to my library (or any off line library). My background as a political cartoonist led me to often only use images, with no captions, or sequences of them. See my user page, which if you knew me in person, whould have layers of meaning and humor for you. The "soul of a hanged criminal as material substance" in TCM is also very interesting. It may be an obscure medicine, but it is not obscure as to fleshing out the conceptual framework of TCM's metaphysics. The problem is that other editors will just view it as sensationalism, rather than revealing of TCM ontlogy. Never heard of Bourbaki? He was far and away the greatest mathematician who ever lived! I used to use "Nicole Bourbaki" as a nick.

Re L. Ron Hubbard, I am already working on your between the lines suggestion, and may email Brang about its introduction. I am also commenting on the "mind maps" discussion at WP:WikiProject Medicine, which in a way, directly bears on the TCM article stylistic structure. You might want to chime in there, although superficially it will appear to have nothing whatsoever to do with TCM. (Incidentally, I produced a fashion show in Hollywood in 2006, as a breast cancer fund raiser. We held it at L. Ron Hubbard's Hollywood Celebrity Center. It came up here regarding MEDRS, and abusing the RFD process to circumvent it.) PPdd (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Dulles' inherent bad faith model and nonAGF

Six words, you just overtly accused me of bad faith again. From your frequent comments all over WP, I'm not sure you ever had AGF toward me. My recollection from reading the hard copy of the book was that there was a sentence that said cannibalism was not "typical of traditional" Chinese medicine. My friend and colleague at Stanford is Paula Findlen, the reviewer on the back cover of the book. And Carla Napi was out here at Stanford to write the book. I do metaphysics, history and philosophy of science, xerophytic field botany, and I work with a chinese integrative medicine conglomerate based in the eastern Gobi desert. So I read the book when it came out. In my mind, when I first read it, I thought this was a book about encyclopedias, taxonomy, and ontology. I had the e-page open to that search term because of arguments and false claims on this talk page, which contradicted my memory from the book. So I just copied the web address from that discussion, not thinking it had the search term, and that web address was open to that search term because of the context of the discussion above. So you should work on your constant assumption of bad faith, a sort of wiki version of Dulles' inherent bad faith model. I only started editing at WP out of boredom, because I was laid up from neural surgery from a 100 foot vertical fall in a landslide. I came back recently recovering from another. Such incessant accusations of bad faith, that I have a "fascination with the penis" like User:Ludwigs2 made, causing people in my personal life to start editing, and those of User:Hans Adler, make me want to never come back to WP when I recover and can walk again. WP should have a guideline to stop such uncivil and false accusations. PPdd (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Note- Ludwigs2 and I reconciled as editors, though not as to WP:Inclusionism and WP:deletionism, nor as to using nonRS to replace RS. This talk page sectoin was prompted by an overt assertion by SIx words today that I was editing on talk pages in bad faith, to which I replied, and she did not, then I posted the above on her talk, and she deleted it without apology or reply. PPdd (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I apologize slightly for a mistake - I see that you did say that the book said it was not typical, which is what page 130 shows. However, that leaves me wondering why you are using websites to emphasize the importance of human parts in TCM and boldly displaying such parts in the table of contents above the more standard things like plants? II | (t - c) 15:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted. You came into this in what appeared to you to be a context of bad faith on my part, due to the relentless accusations against me based on new SPA accounts overtly stating they were at WP because the TCM article was huring their business. Also in the context of intentional political manipulations of other editors. One editor threatened me, then baited my ex-girlfriend into editing by boasting he was a shrewd Wiki politician, threatenting me, accusing me of bad faith, then writing that I have a "fascination with the penis", then when she chimed in, he had the gall to accuse me of meatpuppetry because she took his WP:BAIT, then he accused her of sockpuppetry when she forgot to log on in several Starbucks as she went about her Sunday errands. He has yet to withdraw the accusation. PPdd (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

II, that's why other editors should just add that information. No one editor can do it all. Some find certain pieces and others find other pieces. PPdd isn't obligated to do it all and other editors need to stop pestering him to do so, or for failing to do so.

PPdd, as I wrote above, you need to slow down. Seriously, find some other topics that have no relation to TCM and edit them for a while. Even then, diversify and slow down. Do some vandal fighting for a while. You'll quickly discover why I favor the POV that editors should be required to register, at least after a short time as IPs. IPs account for most (95%?) vandalism. Relatively few long term IP editors are constructive, but there are a few. The rest are usually engaged in destructive and disruptive actions and their edits can be reverted. Go for it. In the process you may even uncover a sockmaster and a whole network of socks. Now that's really fun! I've done it a couple times. Ferreting out 20 socks and blasting them out of the water is fun. Detective work is interesting. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have slowed down. I haven't edited at acupuncture for a long time, and I gave up on TCM after all the RS content was deleted and replaced by Ludwigs2's false NRS opinion, and his deliberate mainipulation to stop the outline structure list paraleling that of what is called "the Chinese medical encyclopdedia", by changing "medicines account for 75% of TCM practice", to some unintelliagable sentence about 75% worldwide witout reference to "medicines", and then deleting the source altogether. PPdd (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have slowed down, that's why I am at WP. I broke my back in a massive land collapse (not broken bones, just massively ruptured L5/S1 when I fell 100 verticle feet down the slide... and landed on my butt! Two neural surgeries later, I am at WP out of boredom being laid up for so long.) Before that, I sprinted barefoot to the top of Mt. Hollywood every morning at sunrise. On the way down I walked, tagging all of the plants with green survey tape, and writing on the tape the botanical name, common name, history and properties, and medicinal uses of the plant by Native Americans. Funny how images of editors can get so twisted by nonAGF by others! :) PPdd (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, try keeping your headings much shorter and non-personal. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I put the names in the header since I noticed these editors with talkbacks, so they could quickly find the section. I had just posted on Sixwords' talk page to keep it private, but instead of responding, she deleted the section from her talk page. Ludwigs2 also simply deletes my posts from his page, as does Calus, e.g., re 3RR warnings. PPdd (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the unfounded attack. Hans Adler 18:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans, with your constant assumptoin of bad faith then attacks on my good faith edits, you, more than any other editor at WP, have made me not want to be at WP anymore after I become more mobile. You have constantly assumed bad faith in my edits, and attacked me by claiming my "true intent" as being bad, sometimes without even noticing me you were doing so. Not once have you ever apologized or retracted the accusations of bad faith. PPdd (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, you put out a call for personal attacks to be posted on your talk page. I wont take that bait, but I will suggest you treat others as you would like to be treated. It's easy to cry shame on others for not AGF when you yourself have been guilty of the accusation. From day one of my editing you assumed I was some sort of meat puppet recruited form an outside source. You then twisted my defense into some sort of misguided indictment of an entire group. I only spoke for myself in posting a link to a blog posting, and yet you ASSUMED I was speaking for an imaginary group. Even though you were quick to point out that the date of the blog posting was after the edit warring. This was blamed on my stupidity, when in fact it was your inability to AGF. You assumed I was providing a link to an imaginary "discussion forum" which lead to disruptive editing instead of reading what I wrote as an introduction to the blog post. Moreover, no one has said that the TCM article is hurting their business, as you state, that is your assumption. It goes hand in hand with your charges of a financial COI and lack of Assuming Good Faith. Kettle; its the pot calling, and guess what, you're both black. My advice would be to apologize for the false accusations and bad assumptions and get back to the business of improving WP. O, and if you want to get back on your feet faster, I hear TCM is really good for that. Calus (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not "put out a call for personal attacks". I collapsed personal attacks irrelevent to an article talk page and said if they must be made, to make them here, not on the article talk page, and I collapsed that too. I was suspicious of you because you claimed to come to WP because of a forum post made on March8, yet you started on March 7, and never explained this. And, thanks, my partner in Shanghai's mother-in-law with ovarian cancer is getting purist TCM treatment and not surgery and chemo, and he says she is "getting a little better". He is from gansu, goes to Church on Sunday, and is also praying for her. Sorry, but if I need a third neural surgery for a massive ruptured L5/S1 where three MRIs clearly showed the entire sciatic nerve smashed to the thickness of a sheet of paper, I will not consider TCM as an alternative. Would you? PPdd (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I replied further in the Buddhism section of your talk page. :) PPdd (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Advice request

HelloAnnyong, I may see DanieliM on Sunday. If I ask her to respond more on the meat allegations, would that be considered meatpuppetry? (She finds humor in Ludwigs2's self pre-declared "political" skills, then WP:baiting her to edit with his "PPdd is fascinated with the penis" attack, so seeing her will not guarantee that she wants anything more to do with this. She is my ex, and an unlikely supporter for me even before that. That's one reason for "ex".) PPdd (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll not advise one way or another here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Who might be good to get advice from? PPdd (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, it basically doesn't matter what DanieliM says. Either people will believe it is just you posing as her, or they'll believe she's saying what you would want her to, or they'll think she's independent (because she has a completely different style--curt and reserved?). There's really no point making an issue out of it. You two should just go back to editing articles and if you are involved in a dispute together, make it clear that you know eachother so it doesn't result in endless sock/meat investigations. Read WP:MEAT closely; there's nothing wrong with collaboration, as long as it's not conspiratorial or sinister. Ocaasi (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. PPdd (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute. Are you saying I'm not curt? (And reserved, she is definitely not.) In that case, I take back my last one word comment. Thanks. :) PPdd (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad Faith

PPdd, you asked about the article and what it needs. My main problem remains: you are using two incompatible versions of bad faith, concurrently.

• (1) The first version is: double mindedness or double heartedness in duplicity, fraud, or deception.[1] It may involve intentional deceit of others, or self deception....A common expression is "to assume bad faith", to see in another person's actions negative motivations, whether or not they actually exist.

The first version is 'bad faith' as in against good practice or agreement. There is an assumption in this usage that the doer is cognizant or negligently unaware of their behavior.

• (2) The second is: Faith is a strong or unshakable belief in something; bad faith is when the strong or unshakeable belief is irrational or unreasonable given known facts, or pretended to be held as a belief.[1]

The second version is bad faith, literally poor belief or reasoning. Irrational or unreasonable given known facts is only bad faith if there is a level of cognizance or negligence; otherwise, it is just being wrong.

• (3) There is also an amount of overlap, for example, if someone pretends to believe something when they don't, that fits under the first version as well...

The article as you have constructed it still mixes these two types of bad faith, and it is confusing. Either split the article into Bad Faith (actions) and Bad Faith (belief), or properly structure the article so users understand the difference between what Kierkegaard would have thought of bad faith, and what your insurance company would. They are not the same, except insofar as everything is related to a degree, and that degree is not the level of synthesis with which encyclopedias commonly engage. Ocaasi (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• (3a) They are blurred for me, and if the article does not blur them, then that is where work is needed.
• (3b) I just gave the classic blurring example of hypochondria, which goes from deep in (1) to deep in (2) (I could'nt find RS, then I googled "male fide" instead of "bad faith", and found it.)
• (3c) Also blurring in the "truth value" of propositions made by a person in type (2). Is their proposition as to their believe true or false? If true, then type (1). If false, then type (2). And the truth or falsity might just be a matter of convention, hence a huge blurring of (1) and (2). I recently added an entire section on this in truth article, and it is apparantly so noncontroversial that it was not insta-deleted like anything else would be in the otherwise air tight and highly wathced by very smart folks article, or even brought up at talk there.
• (3d) Some post-Freud/post-Sarteans, like humuncularist psychologists or tropist psychologists, assert that in the case of type (2) unwitting self deception (e.g., pseudoscience practitioners or racists who actually "believe" what they say), that this is actually a kind of type (1) deceipt on those their bad faith affects, since there is a "part of them", in their "double mind" or "double heart" which "knows better". I just can't find RS on this, although it is a common discussion topic in basic ethics classes. PPdd (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

reader from a distant yet soft-spoken position of narrative omniscience. You need to write as an encyclopedia and not a professor compiling a precis for the introductory chapter of a thesis. If you are using views of individual philosophers or ethicists, they should be attributed. Otherwise, you should try to use something closer to introductory articles which cover this topic generally rather than asserting a particular approach. Heck, even a philosophy or ethics textbook would be better than this style. It's good for you, but your mind works very differently from most readers'. We write for them. Ocaasi (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

NCCAM Classifications of alternative medicine

PPdd--I don't know if you know any more about this than I, but I was looking at that little template thing in all of the alt medicine articles and it seems to indicate that NCCAM has a classification of alt med therapies, but the list is certainly not the NCCAM classification. I will make the correction, but I was wondering if you knew of format repercussions that I might face. Is there a master template editor or do I just forge ahead and replace what is there with the correct categories (according to NCCAM)?

These are the NCCAM Classifications:

I put this on Talk Alt Med:

Maybe the original editor used information that is not currently on the NCCAM website. In any case, NCCAM offers the following classifications of alternative medicine:

Natural Products

Mind-Body Medicine

Manipulative and Body-Based Practices

Movement Therapeis

Traditional Healers

Energy Fields

Whole Medical Systems

If this is how NCCAM classifies this field, and we say that we are using NCCAM classification then the two should match up. If Wiki articles have different names, then the NCCAM name shold be used in the template and redirected to the appropriate article.Desoto10 (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Alternative_medical_systems" Thanks,Desoto10 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Desoto, you might also ask User:BullRangifer. Ocaasi (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Desoto, as to whether you should "just forge ahead", WP:Just do it!. I agree with Ocaasi though. I only started editing alt med articles to learn about editing at WP quickly. I am so wiki-out-of-it. Here's a demoonstration of my wiki-knowledge. I was just writing a talk page comment for TCM on torphic levels; autotrophs, primary, and secondary consumers, respoding to preposterous arguments that there are more plants than animals in TCM, so they should be weighted that way, so therefore anything regarding excreta, bodily fluids, or reproduction should be deleted (also because it is "disgusting"). There is about 10% loss in biomass with each trophic level, meaning that one would expect, all things being equal, 10% animals in TCM (according to the WP article, I thought it was more like 7%), and so about 1% carnivoirs. In fact there are 8% animals in the list put together on a list of what to investigate by one of their main universities, a pretty good fit. That's not a very good argument to make at wiki to people who religiously believe in TCM as an offshoot of Taoist religion, and who likely have little if any science background. So much for my wiki-knowledge! My template knowedge is zil. Also, NCCAM is a political body, as far as I recall, and they all get their jobs based on their likelihood not to rock the altmed-believer-voter boat. PPdd (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page archive

Hi - I assume you were getting confused in creating Traditional Chinese medicine/Archive 4 in article space rather than talk space, as you've already created talk:Traditional Chinese medicine/Archive 4. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. My error. PPdd (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

redacting talk page content?

what's with all the redacting at the TCM page? really, it's best just to leave those threads alone and let the bot automatically archive things. --Ludwigs2 21:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I WP:Refactored to help find stuff, since some editors kept starting new sections for ongoing discussions, until there were 65 sections. Only resolved threads were archived. There was no archive bot, so I installed one a couple of weeks ago, but there were . PPdd (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

ah, well, that makes sense. --Ludwigs2 02:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

L2, if there is something I may have organized in the wrong way, please feel free to put it where you think it most helpfully fits. To do the organizing, I did not re-read all the comments and sections, but just glanced at the beginning few sentences, or section title of each, and then went off of my memory of the content of the section, then moved the section as a whole to group with similar sections. Even that took quite a bit of time with 65 sections, all mixed up with new editors making replies in sections other than that of which they were replying. I did not break up the sections, but moved them whole, sometimes altering the title to remove personal attacks or sarcasm (like in a couple of my own), or when the title was completely ambiguous or not about what the content had in it. PPdd (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm content to sort things out if and when there are confusions or problems - no sense putting effort into it if no one is annoyed by it. you should be careful with things like that, though. if you do stuff like that on a page with a heated dispute you'll get raked over the coals; people don't like having their comments refactored in the best of cases, and if they are looking for an excuse to blow their top you'd be handing them one tailor-made. --Ludwigs2 03:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, advice taken. I did not move contents out of their order within sections, even when they responded to comments in a different section, but I did slightly retitle a few sections (which might piss someone off) and move them to become subsections, and tried to group them when they were related, but keeping the section content itself undisturbed. PPdd (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Continuing discussion with Ludwigs2 re "Verklarte" in 5 Phase TCM alchemy and chemistry, The Monkey and the Inkpot, and Ian Hacking's Histories of Ontology and Epistemology

• I'm still awaiting a translation and explanation of "Verklarte", to use in viewing TCM 5 Phase alchemy and astrology.
• Re Schoenberg's Verklarte Nacht, I could not access what is in that article re his 2nd str quartet movement 4, but that movement used to make my girlfriend from 2002-2005 cry, so I don't know what part of it is in Schoenberg's article. (She died in Sept 2005.) I commissioned a performance of it in LA by a Korean teacher at the Colburn School and her string trio, and they lined up another violinist and soprano, but it fell through because of bizarre Korean politics I was involved in. That 4th string quartet is highly atypical of his works, anyway (you would likely like his later stuff still less, after he declared "the emacipation of dissonance"), and I don't know why those editors put it in. I will try to fix that when I am unblocked.

• Understanding 20th century music is just like writing about TCM! Use that The Monkey and the Inkpot doctoral thesis on TCM quote I put on your talk page, re Ian Hacking.

• You mentioned you like Mahler (Ken Russell did a nice Mahler film). I may be unique in this, but I always classify Verklarte Nacht with being squarely in a class with Mahler's Adagio movement in his 5th Sumphony, his 4th Movement in his 9th Symphony, half of his 10th Symphony (the part after the "Blam!"), Wagner's Prelude and Liebestod to Tristan und Isolde (very similar to Verklarte), Schoenberg's Pelleas and Melisande, Alban Berg's Piano Sonata (which I commissioned a Hollywood performance of by a young pianist I met at the Aspen Music Festivel in 2007), Anton Webern's Largo for string quarted (that one is usualy not included on "Complete works of Anton Webern" CD collections), Richard Strauss's Metamorphosen, and peripherally some Charles Ives larger orchestral stuff, Carl Ruggles' Sun Treader, and very early (and some late) works of Toru Takemitsu. (To show how bizzarre my thinking is to others, I also stick in Iannis Xenakis' Polytope and Elliot Carter's String Qartet #1, but the references to Mahler and Schoenberg are very abstract.) If you like those parts of Mahler I cited, and listen multiple times, you will understand and like the other stuff in that class I just created. But you have to approach it like Carla Nappi suggests using [[Ian Hacking]'s notions in order to approach trying to understand TCM.
• I'm surprised "Music" was not a major metaphysical "substance" category (like "People") in Li Shizhen's Bencao Gangmu. Oliver Sachs might think it was.
• I have something in common with Li Shizhen... we both always go barefoot! :) PPdd (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ocassi and Mathematical Statistics

Ocaasi, I just noticed you edited at Type I and type II errors. Due to your sophisticated false modesty (the opposite of me... My business card says "World's Greatest Braggart" (really)), I had no idea you know stats. That means you might know me, or have heard of me, off Wiki. If you have heard of any of the whacky stories I tell (you encouraged it), please don't out me, or "correct" the stories by citing what I left out by deliberate ommission. I have pretty much stayed away from editing stats articles because my content style in that field is kind of unique, and I would quickly be recognized. I did do some edits at Conceptual model, on nonparametric statistics models (and mathematics, and philosophy of mind), but that was done with me as a philosopher, not statistician. Mark Twain, paraphrasing Benjamin Disraeli, said "There's lies, there's damn lies, ... and there's statistics!", to which I retort, "Yeah, and I'm a Statistician.". :) PPdd (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The charge of a dilettante--and perhaps a human--is to be conversant in everything. Also, I've taught statistics as a private tutor at the high school level. But thanks. I'd invite you to the article, but a) you're blocked, and b) your style of writing would confuse the heck out of any high school students. But I'd love you to check it over and make sure I didn't make any basic mistakes. Ocaasi (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

dilettante------------------------^^Ocaasi---renaissance man--------------------------------------polymath. Ocaasi (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll check it, but if I overphilosophize anything, its stats. I just remembered a slight stats contrib I made on the homeopathy article, trying to define p-value, etc., in a very small number of sentences, less than for a high school student.

When people confuse me for a polymath or "Renaissance man", I point out, "yes, I'm that shallow! On deepness - When I first went to caltech I met with a material science physicist (a films expert studying the mathematics of the progression of the oil and water contours on soap bubbles). She had just left full tenure at Princeton for caltech over some sexism thing, or something like that. She griped about having dug herself in a hole so deep she could not get out, and so narrow in scope that no one else could fit in. Re- "renaissance" - I collect clothing. I have most of the Berkeley Repertory Theater and SF Opera's old collections, and have lots of "renaissance" looking stuff (or at least what is confused by others as being "renaissance", like Louis XIV). PPdd (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TNXMan 13:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PPdd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

• The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption, since I understand what I am blocked for, and I will not do it again and make productive contributions instead.

       * I will never ask anyone to edit at WP for any reason, and even if are experts with RS, or have RS knowledge of a subject that I do not have.
       * I will not ever seek advice or information from anyone who is not already an editor, since they might start editing. (Such as an general expert on TCM, or an expert on the use of TCM medicines in cooking.)
       * I showed my ex girlfriend (from 1996 to 2002) a talk page justification by another editor for deleting content, being that editor stating to me “Your have a personal fascination with animal penises”[4]. I never asked her to edit. I showed her because I thought she would find it funny. I should not show my friends insults thrown at me at WP, or discuss what I think is censorship. I sometimes share a computer with her or others, and we all typically use the internet at shared IPs such as at Starbucks or other cafes. I will restrict anyone who ever uses my own laptop that they never edit at WP, and if I am in the café with them, I will not edit at WP.
       * I have asked her not to edit at WP. (She is unlikely to ever want to again after all of this, anyway.)
       * Before the block, I had already stopped editing on the topics that caused controversy for a week at the suggestion of another editor - not to try to include any use of poisons and human and animal parts in Traditional Chinese Medicine, no matter how common it is in TCM. The few edits I made on that page since then are unrelated to use of dried human placenta, aconite, Deer penis, or other substances that other editors find "disgusting" and "shocking", but are common TCM medicines. I will self-censor to make sure I do not include anything commonly used in TCM, if other WP editors find them offensive.

Decline reason:

Since you lost your talk page access, we need not trouble with this anymore. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

PPdd (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your unblock request

I assume you meant to file an unblock request, I have added the correct formatting for this. TNXMan 14:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. PPdd, DanieliM did 'sound' pretty similar to you in terms of writing style. The story strains credulity, though I don't dismiss its possibility. You can still enjoy reading the encyclopedia, gathering sources, preparing drafts, or anything else. I'd highly recommend reading through all of the past arbcom cases. They will fill up your whole week and you'll understand the ultimate fate of every dispute, plus why it's so important to avoid them. Ocaasi (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• She probably sounded like me (to others who do not know me) because I had just talked to her, and she read what I wrote just before commenting. Plus we shared 6 years of developing speaking and writing styles. We alrady had in common our organizational style, in the kitchen, closets, garage, garden, and writing. I am surprused she did not use all numbered bullet points for anything she wrote here. Sounding like me to her would be more about content than style. Saying she sounds like me might further provoke her into trying to sound like me, with a parody of my content. " :( ,or maybe, :) "
• I commented on what I think of bickering and arb com type stuff at User talk:Sandstein.

Wikipedia:Article creep

Wow! Nice essay. I found it doing WP:NPP patrol of Wikipedia namespace pages. So much detail in such a short amount of time and with photos! Keep up the good work. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Hey man. I just wanted to say that I'm really impressed at your commitment to improving Wikipedia and how quickly you're seeking to better understand the community as you've jumped into really tough topics. Most newish editors would have flamed out in the process of just one of the flaps you have waded into headfirst. Heck, the username discussion alone would have been enough to chase many editors away. Most impressive though has been your clear desire to learn and better understand norms as you have worked through these issues. WLU summed it up well: "I can't wait to see what PPdd's edits look like a year from now, I expect them to be stellar." I may not always agree with you, but you've certainly earned this barnstar for your commitment thus far. Cheers! Zachlipton (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you. Regarding the name flap, it is said, "what's in a name?". Regarding the alt med articles I have been working on, "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is a duck." There is also "A rose by any other name is still as sweet", but this would not apply to me; more apt for me is my own "women are attracted to me like flies to shi---"... Wait, that's one of the flies calling, so I have to go. I will let you fill in that last consonant. :) PPdd (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, since I'm being quoted, I agree. Keep trying to improve, cultivate a thick skin, listen to other editors, and if I can make one tiny further suggestion - perhaps use polite posts on user talk pages to resolve issues like the ones you tried to resolve at WP:WEQ. Be extra polite though, and explain you're a new editor. You're running into Hanlon's razor, people see POV-pushing (malice) where they should see inexperience (unfortunately "stupidity" in the example, but please please please substitute inexperience in this case). Your edit count leads users to assume you are far more experienced than you actually are, most editors with 7K worth of edits are expected to know better. Your editing pattern is messy, duplicative and unusual (something else to work on, add it to your list :P), which means most people see a two year old account with 7000 edits and don't realize it's not 3500 per year, it's 6000 edits in less than two months. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been using your suggested "post at talk and explain I am a still just a Wiki-student" and it has been very successful. I am reminded to when I used to lecture on film, and each year I would show Felini's Satyricon as an alternative to showing the more standard The Graduate. Why Satyricon? Because there is a scene where after a run of debauchery, theft, and murder, the protagonist ends up in a maze and is about to be killed by the Minotaur. He pleads, "please don't kill me, I'm just a student", and the Minotaur backs off and falls in love with him. The university audience typically roars with laughter at that point. I used that excuse as long as I could, then had to get a new one. I hike barefoot, and once acsended at Glacier Point in Yosemite to find a parking lot filled with Japanese and German tourists with cameras. Everyone was puzzled and shocked to see a human emerging from out of nowhere from a sheer cliff wearing only blue jean cut offs. I took a few steps and noticed I was leaving a trail of bloody footprints. Everyone was agahast. I then said, "its alright everyone, I'm a mathematician." That usually works as an excuse for any kind of behavior, but not on this crowd, because no one spoke English. :) PPdd (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Essjayism

Wikipedia:Essjayism, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Nothing personal, but I think it needs to be vetted by a consensus. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Essjayism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Essjayism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi.

• I cannot comment at MfD of edit during MfD because I am blocked for a week. You might want to wait for nominating at MfD until my block ends so I may respond before others consider it, or seek advice from others who have already commented on the essay, or upgrade the essay per new comments and new WP:Essjayism occurences, as I was collecting them for an essay upgrade (still intending to keep it very brief). In any case, I will put some comments here, where I can still edit.

• (1) Re your comment - "I think it needs to be vetted by a consensus" - WP:Essay says, "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." The essay is "the oninion of an editor", "consensus has not been established", it invites "others to edit" it, and it does not "contradict widespread consensus", so is not a userspace essay. Another editor commented on the essay before the MfD, "That's actually a pretty good idea for an essay. Surprisingly brief.".
• (2) The essay was intended as -

• (2a) A repository of WP:Essjay related experiences of other editors so as to keep the essjay essay untouched.
• (2b) A repository of experiences of arguments by authority on talk pages citing a user's "expertise" (true or not) as an "argument".
• (2c) A repository of anthropic principle related things that exist by a sort of autogenisis at WP, of which there are many. By definition, these might create an impression of circularity, which might not be true.

• (3) If the essay has parts with BLP problems, they should be deleted from the essay. If this leaves the essay without any merit at all, the whole essay should be deleted. I am not familiar enought with BLP to make such corrections or determination. PPdd (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I wasn't aware that you were blocked when I created the MfD, but I would have created it none the same had I known since it is about consensus and not one person's view. The MfD will still be going on after your block expires, but in the mean time, I created User:PPdd/MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Essjayism from your above text and transcluded it into the MfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for transclusion. It might be better to refer here[7], since I cannot edit at User:PPdd/MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Essjayism due to the block, only here on this talk page. I also modified my bullet point comments above before you replied. PPdd (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment to be moved to discussion. Regarding BLPish issues, is it possible to email Essjay and ask if he minds the expression essjayism? The point of the neologism was that WP:Essjay is often mentioned (see what links to it), indicating that a neologism might be apropo. PPdd (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page revoked

I don't know what you were doing edit warring with yourself, but it is patently disruptive, and hence I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page. Regards, –MuZemike 00:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have un-revoked talk page access, as apparently edit warring with yourself on your own talk page is not disruptive. I apologize for everything, and I wasn't trying to be abusive or anything like that. –MuZemike 20:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was not edit warring with myslef, but writing articles for when my block ends (one can work to improve WP even when blocked!), then instantly undoing it so my talk page would still be up. When a talk page suddenly gets shut down without warning, one cannot exaplain anything. PPdd (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I realized it was possibly just article drafting, but was a bit preoccupied. PPdd, you can always contact editors through the email addresses they list on their userpages. Ocaasi ^c 01:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, I forgot about emails. I was going to write an essay about never, ever, blocking talk pages. The "trials without seeing all the evidence" leading to blocks is likely a bit offputting to editors, but being shut off talk is a bit over the top for WP being desireous of getting new editors. The essay I was writing is "Absolute Power Corrputs Absolutely", about how admins get carried away with authority, and about how WP will ultimately turn into a giant courtroom, because there is no check on power or check on increasing legalism.

I was also going to write an essay on how being blocked is good for editors, then list all the goods that come from it, and invite others to chime in. (An example is I was forced to let Luwigs2 and Herbxue rewrite TCM, removing all the RS and MEDRS, even Scientific American! This is resulting in an essay like article to prove the thesis that science is not everything if one has enough arcana and elaborate procedures and faith. Wth these unchecked edits, it looks like a situation where a block forces one to give others enough rope that they... :) PPdd (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And thanks, Anthonyhcole! PPdd (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Stats for WP:ITE

Hi PPdd. I've been trialling an "invitation to edit" and "mini-tutorial" here but have come to the point where the data needs to be collected (which I can do) and analysed (which I can't). I was wondering, if you like the aim of the project, whether you'd be interested in helping with the statistical analysis. Your advice would be appreciated, too, Occasi.

Whatamidoing and Garrondo have shown an interest in the statistical analysis on the project talk page and have already done some thinking. If either or both of you are interested, could you please join the discussion on the project talk page when I post the stats (in about 24 hours, I guess)? I know nothing about statistics, so have to leave it to others. My early thoughts on the matter are at Wikipedia_talk:Invitation_to_edit/Archive_1#Study_Design.

I'll start collecting the stats later today. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugghh... doing data analysis?!!!??. @#$%!! I liked philosophy of data analysis, like blowing up studies, not building them, like when high end folks with expensively obtained data come in for analysis after all the data was had, when they should have come in before at the design stage (and at the asking for research grant stage, loving the politics). And my last sentence is in the past tense. It's much easier to point out errors of others than not to make them myself. More seriously, what's controlling for all the confounding stuff? Sounds like a very tricky project. How are you going to control for everything else influinging editorial participation, like increasing lawyering at WP on certain classes of articles and not others? I would expect that whatever the result, some ad hoc explanation for it can be had. Re "please join the discussion on the project talk page", thank The Clown for blocks, which preclude going back up a slippery slope into data analysis and experimental design. (That said, I am a sucker for slippery slopes, and I put an image of Sysyphus at the end of the WP:FROG essay. I was going to put that image on the TCM article talk page as my only comment plus my signature, but others can thank The Clown again... I'm blocked. PPdd (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The lenghy comment I just made can be summed up in 11/2 words, confounding and rogaine. Rogaine (the invite to edit) may grow a few peach fuzzes, but an effective hair tonic is more what is needed. Here is a mini-Borges tale on the declining new editors problem, with a "happy" ending tacked on.

The problem of mortality having been solved, almost everything that could be done easily had been done. Laws, added more than repealed, continued to increase without bound. The accused had all become lawyers so as not to suffer under trial again. The newborn were invited to become the accused, but birth rates declined. Soon all were lawyers. Older lawyers became judges. Ultimately, all were judges, with no one left to appear before them or to litigate in the abstract.

I will come and participate in design and maybe analysis (ugghh) after my block expires. I thanked you above re my talk page block. PPdd (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Initial comments. Are you randomizing assignment to articles? Why just med articles, which may have a different kind or editor likely to participate than others? You might want to consider stats of where first time editors start, and try to abstract a pattern from this, to see where editors are most likely to get in. Most people learn to swim in the shallow end of a swimming pool, and med articles are more like the deep end. So other categories of articles may be best for invites. Also, when doing stats there are usually pre-distribution assumptions, and conditional probability based on reasoning is appropriate as it filters for avoidable noise. For example, articles with less inline citations might be much more likely to have new editors, so an invite, if effective, would be much more effective on an article needing work. PPdd (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Are you randomizing assignment to articles? The selection criteria for articles chosen for the intervention were:

1. High average daily page views
2. Stub, start or C class
3. Low vandalism

These parameters were arrived at after considerable discussion on the project talk page. The primary parameter was "high average daily page views." I just started at the highest and worked down, selecting those that fit the other 2 parameters. So selection was random, in as much as it was consecutive. On reflection, it would have been purer if I'd assigned every second qualifying article to the intervention group, and reserved the alternate articles for the control group. I'm not very troubled by this, though, because the page view numbers of the next 20 qualifying articles are fairly close to that of the first 20.

• Why just med articles, which may have a different kind of editor likely to participate than others? The tutorials are tailored to the article type. I'd never written a biography but had some notion of what is required for a med mini-tutorial; and some influential med editors had already expressed support for the idea in principle.
• You might want to consider stats of where first time editors start, and try to abstract a pattern from this, to see where editors are most likely to get in. Most people learn to swim in the shallow end of a swimming pool, and med articles are more like the deep end. So other categories of articles may be best for invites. I agree that a trial on "the type of article that habitually attracts lots of new editors" would be valuable, and perhaps we can go there if the study proceeds.
• Also, when doing stats there are usually pre-distribution assumptions, and conditional probability based on reasoning is appropriate as it filters for avoidable noise. For example, articles with less inline citations might be much more likely to have new editors, so an invite, if effective, would be much more effective on an article needing work. The assumptions and reasoning you refer to may be found in the fairly detailed discussion on the project talk page prior to adopting the selection criteria, if I've understood you correctly. (For instance, we chose stub, start and B-class articles because they were more likely to inspire readers to improve them.)
• I'll be counting the number of newbie first edits on the intervention and control articles during the trial month, and the number of newbie first edits on those articles in the same month a year ago and 2 years ago. It's those stats that will need analysing.
• If the Rogaine comment means you think the project is a lot of investment for little return, you're not alone there. But, if that is your view, it's probably best that you concentrate on things you have a genuine commitment to. We're all here for fun and satisfaction, and doing stuff we believe will make a difference, after all. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• I will help out as I can. Rogaine invitations might be compared with much more important restructuring of the WP "legal system". No new editors are going to want to edit only to have their edits deleted, or be put on a WP "trial" only to get blocked without even seening some of the "evidence" upon which it is based. It is likely that anyone whose talk page is blocked will never return. Almost no one wants to "volunteer" after being called names or put on "trial".
• Thanks for getting my talk page unblocked.
• An interesting thing to look at is how many new editors make only a few edits then quit thse days, compared to how many new editors made a few edits and continued in years past. This might indicate that they are responding to changes at WP, such as unchecked and now over-"legalization" of the editing process.
• I only started editing alt med articles because I was warned not to, so I thought it would be a good place to quickly learn. If you compare the TCM article before L2 started, it was fully inline sourced. It has now been castrated and gutted and the shit taken out of it, literally, as all penises, meat, and feces medicines were deleted, despite these being the main thing featured in the brand new Princeton/Harvard/Stanford TCM book The Monkey and the Inkpot. I have been working on a controversial BLP (peripherally related to Michael Jackson) in order to learn more about WP, and I note you say that you, too, lack BLP knowledge. You are welcome to help me on that so you, too, can learn about BLP with me. I will begin it when my block ends. PPdd (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, PPdd. Sadly, just now, I have no energy. Not even for the WP:ITE leviathan I have set in motion. I'm trying to drag myself to the keyboard to collect those stats but can't summon the focus. Hoping this will pass soon - but I've been hoping that for a month. Welcome back! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

On type I and type II error for Ocaasi

Occasi, I’ve been researching for my second BLP article, so I only skimmed the type I & II errors article. It looks basically fine (a fine start, that is). I did not read it with severity since I have been working on a deliberately difficult (since controversial) BLP article to further learn about the ways of WP. (It even peripherally involves Michael Jackson!) I wouldn’t worry too much about inline citations. WP math and philosophy articles often lack inline citations unless someone objects (for better or for worse), and are highly OR and Synth. I will come back and read it more closely a little later.
Here are some more philosophical comments, that likely are way beyond what should be in WP, and are mostly OR and off the top of my head, and some are certainly not in any source at all.

• Add something like this - "Type I errors and type II errors necessarily occur due to randomness. They occur with a certain probability, such as a probability of .05, which is used as a publishing standard in scientific publications. The absense of false positives or false negatives over a series of experiments or studies is an indication of bias or deliberate falsification of the data."

• You might want to consider using “fair coin” as the main example, because it is simple and lends itself to a frequentist interpretation (I never did, and never will, understand Bayesianism, and never will.). But most importantly it is (or once was) the standard example in elementary texts, so lots of readers might suddenly remember what they once learned if they see it.
• The use of AIDS is interesting, if you ever had an AIDS test. When you test negative, you are read a standardized statement such as “Your test result was non-positive”, to which a person likely replies, “What does that mean?”, and the answer is “you have to ask the doctor”, who then typically barely understands statistics. You might even be able to find RS on this. Few fearful test result watiers will fail to remember this "result" of their first AIDS test.

Here are some things not in the texts and likely not even online (and which likely should not be in the article). –

• Is statistics inductive or deductive logic? Since all that is really stated is a probability statement under assumptions, there is really never an “error” to have a type I or type II of, just another mathematics tautology derived from logic.
• Difference between I & II – There is usually a tight probability defined for type I, but for type II it might make no sense (E.g., assume Normal independent, mean mew, sd sigma, or assume fair coin -> then probability of coin appearing unfair is precisely defined, but what is type II error distribution mean (or coin bias) assumption to calculate type II error probability from?
• Single hair growth tonic – “Type 5 error” - “regrows hair” if 100% of time one and only one hair grows.
• Underlying independence and distributional assumptions – Type 6 error?
• Single occurrence – your own death results (like getting on the freeway or taking poison), no frequentist interpretation
• Meta-analysis and systematic reviews have type I and II’s that are far more complex in .
• Single biological specimen repeatedly studied vs. population of specimens single studied.
• Transformations – type I error is highly dependent on transformation of dependent variable, simple well known e.g., .
• Exploratory data analysis. Type I and II errors occur outside the mathematical “statistical test” framework (contrary to lead first sentence).

On the last two bullet points - I noticed that the article mentions Mosteller. As a person with too much going on at a time, and as a self declared "Machiavellian" (I applied Machiavelli to an apartment building and an auto body shop I owned - “A prince must live amongst his subjects”, and had bar-b-ques each week.). So I am a "scattered plotter", or as I say, a scatterploter, highly influenced by Mosteller and Tukey’s Data Analysis and Regression and related literature. Good reading if you want to be a real scattered plotter.

• “Best” type I error vs. “minimized” - When bootstrapping, I once proved (but did not publish), by bombarding matrices at matrices left and right, that using the minimized error to bootstrap from is not necessarily the best. I have not thought about the implications regarding type I and II before, and have yet to think it out. Maybe this is a type 6 or 7 “error”?

I don’t know your background, so what I just said might either seem obvious or unintelligible to you. Let me know if you want elaboration. Again, I don’t think there are much in RS on any of it. PPdd (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page drafts

Watch this: User talk:PPdd/draft. Works like a charm. You can create as many as you need with User talk:PPdd/PAGENAME. Just type in the address or link, and start the article. You can also make these in userspace: User:PPdd/draft, but I'm not sure if you are blocked from that or not. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 01:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I cannot edit talk page subpages, only the talk page. I am following your advice about working things up in my own space, using the preview function. I will be cautious so I don't ever get blocked again. PPdd (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Largest residence in Beverly Hills

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Largest residence in Beverly Hills, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hang on}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

I don't care if you have a barnstar, Wikipedia is Wikipedia, bad articles are bad articles, and business is business. You may always appeal to me on my talk page, or to have the marker removed, and you should have put some context into the article; You put in little context, which was a key factor in my decision for deletion. Thank you. CP72 00:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It was an error and only removed for a fraction of time. Sorry. I don't understand, however, how the largest mansion in the most famously luxurious celebrity city is not notable. I understand it is where Michael Jackson and Elton John stayed when in LA. Also a huge list of celebs, as it has enough parking and space for half of Beverly Hills, and is on the crown in BH with a 360 degree view. Its called "the crown jewel of Beverly Hills". The president of the micronation of Melchizidek used to own it, from which she operated one of the biggest financial scams in history. PPdd (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Another talkback

Hello, PPdd. You have new messages at LadyofShalott's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of Largest residence in Beverly Hills for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Largest residence in Beverly Hills is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Largest residence in Beverly Hills until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. VQuakr (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Beverly Hills 90210

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to 90210 (TV series). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You did not support your claim that the Beverly Hills address was a location for the series. Worse, you inserted irrelevant, inflammatory information about the address, all of which comes from an article you created that is currently nominated for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I voted delete with you per yours and other editors' comments. PPdd (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

Before the block, I noticed WLU's urging you to ignore my advice[8] and I enjoyed your response[9]. Thinking about changes takes more time than just making changes. Had he put more thought into his edits and comments, he might have realized three things that beautifully countered all the bad things he said about me there.

1) The conflict over whether infantilism needed a definition had already been settled by a third opinion. (It didn't need one. WLU lost an edit war he shouldn't have started. 14:29, 4 March 2011)

2) The conflict over whether all the citations in paraphilic_infantilism should have titles, or whether a few should be without titles, hadn't started yet. (He had removed the titles before, but I hadn't yet attempted to restore them. I was giving him some time to settle down and finish his hatchet-job first. I wouldn't restore the titles until 15:46, 5 March 2011. He quickly reverted.)

3) When he urged you to ignore my advice(17:02, 4 March 2011), the only open conflict was with Yobot at paraphilic_infantilism. Based on WLU's advice, we should put our faith in the more "experienced" editor: In this case, that would be Yobot with 1,358,751 edits at the time. Their senseless slow-moton edit war was comical to say the least. Since the manual of style clearly supported Yobot, this was another edit war that WLU shouldn't have started.

I have to admit that edit warring with a bot is an experience that I haven't had, and is a sure way to drive up one's edit count. Now, are you going to tell WLU a joke for picking an edit war with a bot, and if so, do I get to listen in? BitterGrey (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. An edit war with a bot sounds fun to me, but keep in mind that I am the type who added WP:Sandbox to my watch list. :) PPdd (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No references or indication of notability. I say we AFD it! :) (Does this mean I won't get to read the joke?) BitterGrey (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I added some diffs above, since I noticed that WLU has added this discussion to a massive list of ambiguous accusations he's been preparing. He has been posting it and self-reverting quickly [10][11], maybe assuming that no one would notice. BitterGrey (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A note about categories and sandboxes

Greetings PPdd,

While dicking about on your user page, I followed some links to your sandbox (sandboxes are almost always interesting). I noticed that your sandbox1 is in several categories. I believe this is due to the presence of several templates linking to wikiprojects. May I suggest you disbale the category? It's normally a good idea to keep sandboxes and the like out of categories. With straight up categories, you would add a colon after the initial square brackets (i.e. [[:Category:Userboxes]] becomes Category:Userboxes). For templates that automatically include the page in categories you have to disable the template itself by adding {{tl| to the beginning of each. Both cases produces a hyperlink, retaining the template and category as a type of content while disabling the actual template or category, thus preserving the integrity of the category itself. Just a thought. Might want to disable or erase misza as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I may be busy outside for the next few Spring days, but will get to it as soon as I can. What is misza? A suggestion, I haven't read the controversy, but you might want to apply to words of Rodney King to relations with Bittergrey. :) PPdd (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

User:MiszaBot_III is the bot that handles talk page archiving. Getting away from Wikipedia (or at least the desk) sounds like a great idea. The weather report says it will be lovely. BitterGrey (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Misza is a bot (User:MiszaBot) that's typically used to archive talk pages automatically. It's actually already running on this talk page, but you can only see it in the edit pane for the first section. If you edit the first section (section 0) or the whole page, at the top you will see {{User:MiszaBot/config |maxarchivesize = 250K |counter = 2 |algo = old(7d) |archive = User talk:PPdd/Archive %(counter)d }}, which means sections of your talk page are put into your archive every seven days (algo = old(7d)), creating a new archive when your current archive reaches 250K (maxarchivesize = 250K), your current archive is "2" (counter = 2) and your current archive is User talk:PPdd/Archive 2 (User talk:PPdd/Archive %(counter)d where counter = 2). Your sandbox 1 is also running Misza, but since no-one is probably editing it, you may want to erase the misza template. It probably won't run anyway, but just in case. Also good practice and a learning experience.

I'm deliberately not commenting on Bittergrey. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, WLU will just update his secret linkbomb or whatever he is calling it[12]. The Rodney King quote referenced above was probably not “Nothing has changed in our country, so I am still feeling that same pain and anger” but "Can't we all just get along?” BitterGrey (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wanna grade a problem set?

False_positive_paradox. If not, no sweat, I think it checks out. Cheers Ocaasi ^c 09:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. The literal answer is no, but "literal" does not mean "true", "wanna" is a term of art that differs from "needta", "needta" is conditional (in a Bayesian way) on what is presented before one's eyes, and so your question seems to ultimately fall under WP:BAIT. Being one who "needsta" eat any tasty looking bait I see, I point to a primer on likelihood in Ian Hacking's very early writings on the logic of statistical infrence. In completely different direction from that, I point out that although science is considered inductive, it is based on mathematical statistics, which is purely deductive, so the existence of inductive reasoning is but an illusion. All of statistics makes assumptions such as of independence or distributional. So everything is driven toward Bayesianism, as probabilities conditional based on the assumptions, which are grounded on an ever more vague probabilistic foundation in an infinite regress. Bayesianism, as opposed to frequentism, is about beliefs (see Rudolph Carnap, etc.). Therefore, it is more similar to Berkeleyan idealism than a Humean ontology/epsitemology. I.e., you are just imagining everything when doing statistics. Thus having dispelled any illusion of the objectivity of science, note that I keep from falling down into a bottmoless pit of hell of infinite regressing Bayesianism by my not having ever understood what "Bayseianism" means, so I cannot be accused of such imaginary activities, and that's why everyone clearly thinks I am the mean of sanity from which all else is measured, and it is everyone else who is nutty and eccentric. In fact, I speculate that the normal distribution was placed in the world by GOd to be discovered by those early 20th century euginicists so that I could be placed at the very top of it. And like any good omnicient solipsist/megalomaniac (never under-rate me by calling me a mere narcicist), I watch myself, whereby my seeming paranoia is not really paranioa because it has thus reached objectivity via an extremity of subjectivity. Oh, yeah, again, and speaking of Hume, modifiying a quote of his, "There is nothing to be learned from a professor that cannot be read in an online encyclopedia." Writing this, reading my own edit summary, and reading about textiles, has stimulated me to add to the Pied Piper article. I knew that Textiles textbook (how's that for an alliterative reparte to yours in the section above?!) would have some use beyond being just another chapter for another How to Pick-up on... bestseller. And if you WP:Bait me again with a tasty morsel of statistics, I will give you a long-winded and rambling response, instead of a brief and focused one like this. :) PPdd (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)