Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peter Damian (old) (talk | contribs) at 17:27, 30 August 2008 (→Block threats). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome back

• Welcome back. -- Naerii 20:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A very welcome back. Please don't allow private correspondence from unremitted staff, voicing their own opinions, to cloud your judgement. Giano (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. But I sensed a dread hand behind that email. Peter Damian (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are wrong! Giano (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Little Peter surely correct, sadly. bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC).

Thank you for these kind messages, didn't understand a word of the last one. Peter Damian (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Please click on links including roaring. bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC).

Ah - now understand. Peter Damian (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome back. Sorry I wasn't able to be of more help to you. GRBerry 14:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by FT2

Actually, for what it's worth, if I'm being referred to here, my "dread email" to arb-l read as follows.

Disclosed for transparency. That is how an Arbitrator should act, even when nobody is monitoring them. I believe I'm allowed to cite myself, and on this occassion - exceptionally - choose to do so for "Peter"s benefit and information.

Email 1: If I've got it right, then the above is a new username of a user blocked in December 2007, in connection with various issues. He looks like he's asking (or preparing to ask) for an unblock. Two comments: I had a long LONG discussion today in which I expressed strongly that I felt hearing him openly and on-wiki as he asks would be a good thing, even though in many cases we require such users to email the list. If the case is heard, I would ask that from the time a venue is decided and a statement presented, any actual discussion of his ban itself is held off-list. Again, "best practice". The aim in both cases is identical. To quote myself: ArbCom members should be utterly above all such and if a doubt arises its important anyone who wants to hear can see the evidence. There is nothing privacy related here. All he's been venting about is to get unblocked. Whether he will act again as he has before, or not, is a risk I'm willing to take for the sake of openness of the Committee. Plus it's his only actual problem. I'm aware that nobody with any sense thinks anything's up, but I feel strongly that it is important that there be zero doubt, when we have cases that even tangentially, an arbitrator may be non-neutral on, then we take whatever steps we can to be open about it. Compare the drama over poetlister where we simply made a summary statement, vs. archtransit where we explained broadly the kind of evidence we had and let it be public. This is a similar case, where openness will show there is clear and simple evidence and whatever the decision is will be obvious. Handling it off-wiki has drama potential. He's not a sock, not a habitually disruptive editor, he's written good content over the years and wants back. Would it be possible to arrange whatever is decided, to be done in a way that is as transparent as possible? That said no appeal has yet formally been submitted by any route, that's just my view up front.

And again:

A second email

A private request for whoever replies to Peter Damien. My concern is as stated, it's better in public. Privacy just doesn't serve us well if not needed. We hear in private for privacy issues more than for drama reduction (**). An on-wiki hearing will remove all doubt and give a more solid basis for communal agreement of his case without concerns. However, if it is heard in private, could whoever sends the confirmatory email please include as follows. It is /very important to me/ that he's made aware of it, even if consensus doesn't agree. Please? Thanks. === INCLUDE THIS SNIP "Please note that FT2 has requested strongly that the matter be heard in public, and that deliberations if accepted are kept off the Committee's mailing list. He has given permission for his email to be quoted...<snip>" ** Not strictly true, my bad. We also hear in private since the basic purpose of a ban is to remove from the wiki, a user and the disruption or problems they bring (which we have not been able to resolve by any lesser process).

And again, a third time (you have to keep asking sometimes):

A further email

These are the concerns I'm aware of in deciding "public or private". There's a few of them, some are important: Banned users are normally heard off-wiki, especially if their ban resulted from defamation issues and might result in drama or a "platform". Opposing view 1 - there is nothing inherently private here and the defamation claim has been judged by the community and others and found meaningless; I'm not averse to it. Opposing view 2 - A number of users are aware of his claims and would probably be more reassured to see them rebutted publicly than in covert discussion. There are concerns that having been unable to stay off the topic twice now, he will be unable to in future. Opposing view - if his case is demolished then the allegations die down? But they may not, or the rebuttal may be /really/ bad for him IRL. Any hearing will inevitably discuss . I assume from the RTV and new name he wants to avoid that. It's going to be difficult to both avoid that problem and also have a public hearing. Opposing view - anyway so it's not really private. But he may not realize that. A sitting arb was the subject of the action, if the ban stands then it will be said there was bias, whereas if it's public it will be obvious what was said and done, the evidence, and conditions etc. He is, apart from this one issue, a productive editor well worth getting back if he can be reliably stable and genuinely agree its closed. We /need/ to be open. But we cannot do so without the evidence about his block being public too. I don't think this is for us to resolve; whatever we might decide is WP:WRONG. <snip - roughly concludes that Peter Damian should be made aware of the issues, and asked by an uninvolved arbitrator, for his preference.>

Cited complete, verbatim, unedited, from 04/25/2008 and 04/26/2008. This is the standard that's expected to be taken for granted on ArbCom - being utterly neutral and considering all sides fairly -- even for one's own attacker. There were others, same concerns.

And also note this is not here to "prove" anything, per se. It wasn't written for public. You won't often see internal arb-l emails. This is an exception for transparency and because a user - even a hostile, defamatory, banned user - should never have to doubt their handling will be as fair as practical regardless, and handled as best possible. How it's taken is a matter of complete indifference. The offering of the information, though, is what is appropriate.

Whatever's decided will be decided by the Committee, based on evidence, discussion, and dialog, as for any ban appeal. I have taken steps not to be party to the deliberations, as stated above, and will therefore complain strongly if I am copied in on it by any other person against my wishes. I believe this has been fully conveyed to its intended recipients. FT2  23:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

comment by Damian

The long rant above has nothing to do with the matter, which was Thatcher's email to me privately complaining that "FT2 has expressed concern (as an editor whom you attacked, not as an arbitrator) that you were unblocked, and the request from Arbcom forme to unblock you may have been premature due to a miscommunication.)" The email also contained details of things that FT2 has complained about for some time, so I can only assume most of the content was communicated to Thatcher by FT2.

The stuff on this page is much more sinister. "The rebuttal may be really bad for him in real life'. Yes I'm aware that FT2 knows my real name, knows my workplace email and knows my concern about the vicious block messages deliberately placed so that colleagues at work could see it. And the bit "Any hearing will inevitably discuss . " is also disturbing.

Calling me a 'hostile, defamatory, banned user' is not helpful either. And why are these constant references to 'the community'. The community has judged this and that? Bullshit. These comments are deliberately intended to marginalise my complaint. The case should go to Arbcom and any judgments should be reserved for that august body.

I do not want these threats placed on my page. I accepted the unblock on the understanding that I would take the matter up in public. Then I get an abusive email from Thatcher instigated by FT2. This is not acceptable. I am emailing Arbcom in private. Peter Damian (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Well, I've formatted your refs (which should really be in-line citations) and removed POV, so i've atoned Jimfbleak (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! it was all in jest anyway. Peter Damian (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Isagogue

Many thanks for your note, and kind words about my introduction! I've added to the page you wrote a link to the English translation itself of the Isagogue. Roger Pearse 15:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A message for Daniel Brandt

I am no troll. Peter Damian (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

I'm just wasting your time, but I thought it was cool to see your name on the recentchanges log. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 07:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How else would I know you? :) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 07:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. You might have an interest in Medieval philosophy of course.  :-( Peter Damian (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again

Glad to have you back. 271828182 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings large-numbered one. Peter Damian (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice try

I've followed this article for a couple of years. Its refreshing to have people with expertise try to contribute. The boorish often prevail here, and there's no way to control it. The way the system is set up itself is insane. I appreciated your efforts, and have learned something from your efforts. I agree with your statement, its insane to try to make a serious contribution here. That was a flash of the rational. I'll try to take your messages to heart, and realize its just a glimmer of the potential of a well written article that could have been. Best wishes. Richiar (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC) (Psychiatrist in real life)

thank you Richiar. Yes, I remember your profession. Perhaps you should offer your services on the talk page. Peter Damian (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Avicennism

Hi, I've nominated Avicennism as a good article. Please check it and help me with it before a reviewer start reviewing it. I also put some tags on Medieval philosophy and explain the problems on the talk page. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there are some wikipedians like Jagged who can help you with the sections of medieval philosophy which relates to Muslim philosophers. I found some mistakes like in related articles. Due to the fact that I'm a Persian and I know Arabic, I can help you with translations and technical expressions as well as the sources and ideas of Muslim philosophers. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again

I've been looking at the Philosophy page from time to time, but it's generally been moribund. It's stunning that a group of people, some of them very intelligent, can't figure out how to start the article. Not that I have a magic solution. Cheers. KD Tries Again (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Deleuze

The article (or rather, just that section of the article) has been under persistent attack by a problem editor, Skoojal (talk). His edits are almost all stylistically clumsy and he is a total ignoramus about philosophy, but he, like so many others, has lots of time on his hands and a lumberjack's collection of axes to grind (glance at his edit history and you'll find a crusade to eliminate the word 'gay' and replace it with 'homosexual', as well as an explicitly stated campaign to make Frederick Crews look bad). In this case, he had decided that particular paragraph is riddled with POV. As with my earlier go-round with Lucaas over the Being & Time article, I have adopted a strategy of heavy citation. This wins sentence-by-sentence battles, but the formerly short and snappy paragraph ends up a piecemeal string of references, with the spirit and style washed out. I think it was all set off by my use of the word pace, which he repeatedly called "snide" and has deleted. I suspect he didn't know what it meant, had to figure it out, and that really got his drawers in a bunch. 271828182 (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make comments like this about me, I suggest that you make them to me directly in future. To address one of your claims above, I was well aware what pace means. Not all readers would be, however, so it had to be changed. Skoojal (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi I suspected that from the style of some of the rewrites. I completely hate this piecemeal cite-by-cite approach so that every sentence is festooned with endnotes looking like an attack of headlice. You have my full support, indeed if you can point me to some particular examples I will actually help - I don't know much about the subject but a lot of this is simply about style and sources. You got me interested in Deleuze by the way. Peter Damian (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You might like to look at "Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy" by De Landa, its a very interesting take on Deleuze, an attempt to interpret him for an Anglo-Saxon tradition. --Snowded (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by Delanda. Just read Deleuze. Skoojal continues to be a nuisance. He has extended his dictates of style to the effacement of parentheses. 271828182 (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just looked at existence precedes essence; yes, it's bad, but I don't have time to do the from-scratch rewrite that is called for. It is worthy of being an article, though. 271828182 (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked at existence precedes essence too. Wouldn't have expected an article on it, and it's badly written. As a simple expression of Sartre's view, it's okay, but it gives the bizarre impression that Sartre was wrestling with a position advanced by Avicenna. I can't really comment on Avicenna and Averroes, but I should have thought their positions related to existence/essence in scholasticism, and should be dealt with elsewhere. I now fear to look at Deleuze.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It's from the Misplaced Pages Islamic school. See the rather odd Islamic Golden Age for a flavour of the style required.

Peter Damian (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify the issue on History of philosophy. Mulla Sadra lived after that age. He's neither an scholastic philosopher nor peripatetic one. He belongs to mystic tradition in Islamic philosophy. I tried to improve that article by adding some reliable source. By the way I propose moving this debate to the talk page of that article.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagreements

Peter Damian, I suggest that you respond to my comments on the Deleuze talk page. Skoojal (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you have little knowledge of the true history of Greek Philosophy. May I suggest you read "Stolen Legacy" by George G.M. James. Once you have read that book, you will completely understand why I have made changes to the article on philosophy. The world should know the truth. You should also read (William Turner's Hist. of Phil.)and (W.H. Couch's Hist. of Greece) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navelio (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at this editor's contributions, I think that Peter might find this page appropriately funny. GRBerry 16:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you GRB. And thank you Navelio. I am still bemused by the idea that the word 'philosophy' is African but I promise to look out for this book and learn some more. Peter Damian (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I read this which explains all. Pythagoras learned all his philosophy from the Egyptians. Much of Aristotle's work was not written by him, but by the Egyptians &c. I'm not sure this view is sufficiently notable enough to include in Misplaced Pages, although it all sounds very plausible and may be true. The problem is we are bound to verifiability, not truth. Sorry. Peter Damian (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

But thats just the thing, you know this to be true. Even the Greeks have admitted that Philosophy came from Egypt and that it was stolen by Aristotle during Alexander the Greats invasion of Egypt. There is more then enough proof. So why not change the Philosophy page, edit it and put up correct information for people to read and learn. Be honest, what proof is there showing that Greek Philosophy really is Greek Philosophy? Theres no way to Verify if it is really of Greek birth.

You have a very good point. Sadly I have been banned forever from Misplaced Pages for arguing just this kind of thing. Perhaps you could try to continue the good work? This is important stuff, you will just have to deal with a lot of POV warriors. Good luck. Peter Damian (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

western philosophy

Yes i saw you spammed with nonsensical wp:or. the citations sure, those are fine mark-ups. the original research, i'm sorry it is nonsense. it is common general history that needs citation at best and really doesn't need that other than to fit policy, it wouldn't need to be in any other encyclopedia. --Buridan (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

i do think it could use many cite tags, i think you can add as many of those as you need. Then we can wait a week or ten and delete the nonsense.--Buridan (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone

Thanks for catching that. It's certainly a bad idea to let Gordon Chen edit Misplaced Pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okaaay

What you wrote here was waaaay off the mark, potentially libelous and seriously unwarranted. In fact, I'm of the opinion that they need oversight. Not to mention that the RFA has already ended and you're striking other people's votes because you disagree. Then you used a name that may or may not be their RL name. Just what are you *doing* here??? Calling someone a "pervert" and suggesting they are a paedophile?? wtf?? - Alison 22:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Go on ban me then. Support these perverts. Peter Damian (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm neither in the business of banning you nor "supporting perverts", so don't even go there. What you said was completely out of order - Alison 22:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit has been oversighted, like the old days right? Anyone who says that age doesn't matter is a pervert in my book, and in this context. Animals, 12 year old boys, who cares Alison. Peter Damian (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remember WP:CIVIL.Thanks!--Xp54321 23:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nonsense. Put it this way - if I'd not got here first, you'd have been very muchly banned for what you just said. So don't try and tar me with that wide brush of yours, either. As an expert witness, I've already seen two kidporn merchants get safely locked up, back in Ireland. So don't go there - Alison 23:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC) (you get to have the last word. I'm busy)

Well don't oversight my edits like the last time. What did you actually do against the kidporn merchants apart from read it in the newspaper. Peter Damian (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate for an administrator to take action against you, especially considering your history of baseless accusations against FT2. You unapologetically attempted to out me and borderline accused me of molesting children . For the record, I fully support the age-of-consent. Having sex is obviously not in the same league as having a "Delete" button. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Go on ban me then. Peter Damian (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You do good work, when you want to. It would be a shame to ban you. But perhaps, if you can't stop disrupting that RfA, a block until it's over (including any after discussion) might be in order... I see you seem to have stopped for now, please don't resume. Hint: edits that get oversighted usually are a sign that you might want to change your approach. ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

the rfa was withdrawn so it was already closed but peter here chose to try and inflame things further. those accusations were despicable and libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

June 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ryan. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Xp54321 23:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jules Verne

I read your post on WR. I have just dealt with a rampant sockpuppeteer User:Burrburr and friends, whose main activity is to remove such pro-pedo edits from dead historical figures. I suspect he was correct on substance but the abusive sockpuppetry (80+ accounts) was unacceptable. It would be a good thing for a knowledgeable, non-sockpuppet using editor to perform the same sort of review, as long as it is done civilly etc. The pro-pedos will find it much harder to revert someone of relatively higher status (most of Burrburr's accounts edited for only a day or two, so it was easy to label them as vandals or "single purpose accounts" and deprecate their edits). This is, of course, harder to do with an established named editor. Thatcher 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks my doppelganger User:Hinnibilis is dealing with this one. I'll do my best but you know I have a somewhat short fuse but I am no stranger to long spells in solitary. Peter Damian (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You of all people...

... are following this and this, I trust? Bishonen | talk 11:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC).

Thanks, but sadly I missed that, and as usual the whole thing is completely incomprehensible unless you came in at the very beginning. The only bit I understand is "FT2, your last post at the AN subpage is utterly incomprehensible. ". Is there a translation or brief summary anyone has prepared? Peter Damian (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh noo...'zilla can't face reading up... FT2 always incomprehensible... go climb Reichstag or ask User:Carcharoth or something... anything... Tokyo in imminent danger ... puny 'shonen not surprised apparently... bishzilla _ROARR!! 19:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC).

Little Stupid understand nothing! Nothing! Little Stupid (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC).

Oh well - but thanks for letting me know. I have read a bit more since, though can't entirely make sense of it. The problem is that Misplaced Pages's disjointed and atemporal way of handling discussion makes all text resemble a James Joyce novel. Peter Damian (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad blocks

I see this is being discussed here

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=222518717#Bad_Blocks

But under what strange assumption have I been 'harassing' another user? I accused FT2 of 'in effect' enabling pro-paedophile editors by blocking me and about the only other person prepared to put an end to nonsense claims like 'Jules Verne was a paedophile'. Yes, true. Another set of organisations I am contacting is the many Jules Verne societies. Oops but is that a 'legal threat'? Let's see. Peter Damian (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Block reduced

Per my comments here and the preceeding discussions, I have shorted your block to one week, including "time served." There are no conditions, but it might be wise to avoid discussing FT2 in the future. If the assumptions of bad faith and jumping to conclusions you have engaged in regarding him continue, support for the next unblock is likely to be scarce. Thatcher 16:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Proof by example

Do you know any editor who would be good at fixing up Proof by example? It covers the fallacy aspect (1 X is a Y therefore all Xs are Ys) well, but completely omits the valid aspect (1 X is a Y therefore some Xs are Ys). GRBerry 18:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I could I suppose assuming I'm not blocked or banned within the next few days. I'll have a look in the big blue book in the hall. Best. Peter Damian (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Peter Damian (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. GRBerry 20:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Existence/Essence

I think that's a huge improvement; well done. I think a point which might be made at the outset is that the proposition that "existence precedes essence" is specifically a proposition about human existence. It doesn't overturn the tradition so far as things/animals are concerned; it says that humans are different.

This would make it easier, further on, to explain the existential crisis when a human individual realises that the world is just as it is - absurd, de trop, without meaning. just brute existence. The danger is that such absurdity is reflected back on oneself, if one forgets the exclusively human ability to create meaning for his/her own existence.

Is that at all clear? Writing it is one thing, of course, finding some handy cites is another. Anyway, the article needs very little tweaking to make those points, I think.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

WP:TABOO

I think it's a good start, but is still far away from where it needs to be. Specifically, I think you need to make a pass specifically writing for the other side. The flip side of "minority groups try to leverage WP to make something appear more widespread than it is" is "people who find the activity distasteful may try to eliminate all mention of it, even when it's a notable topic about which there are appropriate reliable sources." Spend some time on it "writing for the enemy" and I think this will be a very useful essay. Hope that helps. Nandesuka (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Good idea. Grateful for any help. Peter Damian (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Nandesuka's observation on this one in terms of noting advocacy on both sides. But I agree with you that articles which are basically POV forks of mainstream topics which require either:

1. original synthesis of sources, or
2. leaning heavily on sources which are both in the minority of published opinion on the topic and are questionable in their neutrality

really don't have a home on Misplaced Pages. I think WP:UNDUE is the key here. If they're crystal clear violations we of course can delete them and warn people, but there's a sort of grey area where some truly odd articles have emerged which really bring Misplaced Pages's mission and value into question for some outside observers. They usually turn into very odd AfDs, where consensus processes are completely abused by advocates and not helped by the behaviour of opponents.

I'm not at all advocating a "family-friendly zone" - there is a way to discuss controversial issues which accounts for reliable published opinion and research on the topic. I think the current article on Child sexual abuse for example manages this quite well. Interestingly this sort of stuff doesn't just go on on sexual topics - I've seen it on religious, nationalist and political topics as well (imagine a political article which relies entirely on National Review, Washington Times and Quadrant for its facts, for example...) Orderinchaos 01:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

article for deletion: Nicolò Giraud

Hi I was wondering if you could weigh in here. This article looks like it was created to give exaggerated weight to his relationship with Byron. The article does nothing more than talk about his relationship with Byron. Seeing how Byron's work was not influenced by him and he had no notable influence on his life at all, there's no need to have a ceparate article and just two or so lines in hte main Byron article should be enough.

Sorry I haven't been able to to contribute to the taboo page since I'm too new here to know all the rules and regulations already in place and I feel I need to learn them first before I can give suggestions on improving them.

- Nocturnal Sleeper

Psychobabble

Hi, I was sorry to see that your brave Afd has been closed. It is not surprising perhaps, but I think you are right to pursue it. Now that I can see the extent of the problem, I'll assist in whatever way I can ;) Best wishes, Poltair (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your offer of support. The suggestion has been to pursue one AfD after another, or to go to the Wikiproject on Rational Scepticism. As you say, the extent of the problem is massive. Until I started, I had no idea the monster had grown so many heads. If you can think of any obviously flawed article to start with, let me know. Meanwhile, I will think too. Peter Damian (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont have a lot of time, but I will lend support to the effort to improve this area, but I suggest you take it slow and work from the outer regions into the middle. For what it is worth, I have read this, I did get a chuckle out of a few of Flavius's comments and selection of adjectives. This is not a topical area that I hold any qualifications in, but I can provide outside opinions on tap.

In regards to Philosophie des Als Ob, I was suggesting that the actual text should be put onto Wikisource in German and an English transcription provided in an attempt to underpin an assault on As-if (NLP). Wikisource is a mechanism of ensuring nobody has any excuse for not checking and understanding the source - it promotes open discussion of the source - the text is accessible and deep links can be added to give Misplaced Pages links finer granularity. Many other benefits, but I am biased about it. If nothing else, you can tell me of some PD journal articles that should be available on Wikisource, and I will do what I can to focus on sorting that out for you, which will also get my brain rolling on this topical. John Vandenberg 16:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help as well, its not only bad science, its also got some nasty religious aspects attached --Snowded TALK 16:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I have a good summary of Vaihinger's work in my encyclopedia of Philosophy, I shall raise an AfD on the Misplaced Pages version this week (just back from holiday and the children competing for use of our 1 computer). I think, bearing in mind the confusions on the currently closed AfD, that certain things should be spelled out more. For example, some people did not understand the difference between an article about a company or product (which is Ok, as long as it is not advertising the product, and presents the product in a neutral way), and promotion or advertising (which violates NPOV). Glad someone found the Flavius entertaining! Peter Damian (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For example, you can see the promotional aspect in the As-if (NLP) article in the bit where it says "The lady, an alcoholic, contacted the speaker some time later saying I think that is the most beautiful question in the world, later admitting she had in fact been intending suicide beforehand due to her alcoholism but instead now had not been able to stop thinking about this question. ". I.e. it is making the entirely unsourced claim that NLP is a wonder cure, that (as here) is an instant cure for both alcoholism and suicidal depression. It almost convinced me for a second. Peter Damian (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A caution Peter - use the right tool for the problem. If the existing content is terrible but the article merits a subject, the AFD answer is more likely to be {{sofixit}} than to delete it. Some of the articles may merit deletion, but POV problems won't be the way you identify them. Articles POV problems because there aren't any independent and reliable sources will merit deletion for lack of usable sources. Identify deletion candidates on sourcing issues... GRBerry 18:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the best place for a centralised discussion is right at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject NLP concepts and methods. I've joined, and suggested three additional goals for the project. DGG (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

At User talk:Jayvdb#NLP, Peter thought that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rational Skepticism might be a good project to get involved. --John Vandenberg 18:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I'm having the same problem with articles about the seduction community. But I'd suggest the associated wikiproject in both cases would tend to consist of fans of the subject, for instance, wikiproject seduction has as part of it's remit to "create new articles" on the subject, so they may be tend to lean towards keeping them, as I would tend to be about my own interests lol.:) I would say wikiproject rational scepticism was the way to go, but you could also just put merge tags on the non-noteworthy articles, and if that doesn't work ask for a Requests for Comments on the articles. Sticky Parkin 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments

• You fix an article when there is valid material that it could express, but it is not expressed in the right way. You delete it when there is nothing useful it could express. In this case, it is the latter. None of the sub-articles have any intellectual content - they are 'veneer' articles placed there to give the effect of academic respectability. So, delete the lot. But I'm still challenged about what process in WP allows me to do this.
• The associated Wikiproject is on reflection NOT the right place, for the reasons suggested by 'SP'.
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rational Skepticism might be the right way, but it seems a bit vacant and empty at the moment.
• 'Seduction community' is by the way deeply horrible.

It is also, of course, coincidentally, derived to a great extent from NLP.:) Sticky Parkin 13:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

NLP: Trying again

Articles for deletion: NLP Modeling

• Your AFD seems too partisan, reflecting a general hostility to the topic rather than a desire to see it properly documented here. Looking deeper, I also wonder if this is a veiled attack upon User:FT2 who seems to have many enemies. I have no axe to grind in this matter and so venture these speculations to help you clarify your propositions. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You have my support

Whatever you do to rid this project of pseudoscientific cruft has my absolute support. Just realize that FT2, who seems to support this crap, may engage in secret hearings to fuck you over, but his tactics won't scare me. I don't watch AfD's unless informed. Please email me when you attempt to delete more of these bullshit articles. Or if you prefer, just post it to my talk page. Hundreds of other editors watch my page, so it should help in fucking over FT2's favorite articles. If FT2 likes secret hearings, I'm ok with secret emails. OrangeMarlin 06:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Between "secret hearings" and "secret emails" there are wp:civil and wp:npov. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 14:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Peter has considerable support for deletion of NLP Modelling. Deletion of NLP overall was a mistake, but it is (in the opinion of several editors) a poor article that needs radical improvement to prevent it being a commercial site. I saw a polite notification to FT2 about the deletion notices and a legitimate question as to possible conflict of interest. Now I have been irritated by Peter several times in the past, but his history as an editor on various philosophy pages is outstanding and someone needs to get a grip on the proliferation of NLP articles. I have not gone back on the history of edits on pedophilia but obe reference is to a talk page not an article and the other to an edit on which seems a difficult question of interpretation. This ban seems excessive. --Snowded TALK 15:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Peter Damian needs to be unblocked very fast before this escalates into yet another very unplesant Wiki-scene, of the sort best avoided. Giano (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, I think you may be unaware of the long history of problematic conduct by Peter Damian, particularly with regards to FT2. Take a look at the thread at the bottom of WP:AN discussing the block. I don't think the NLP modelling nomination is the only basis for this block. Avruch 15:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that I was familiar with the detail, but I was aware of the previous block and attempting some trackback at the time. I got lost in the detail and what seemed a lot of Misplaced Pages politics around Arbcom (from memory). Peter is pugnacious, but he is well intentioned. He sometimes flies off the handle but I know several editors who are worse and seem to escape banning. I could imagine making the same request to FT2 myself (please declare if you have an interest here). Ok the history might make it provocative, but an indefinite ban? Sorry this smacks of censorship and protectionism. I think its wrong and should be speedily reviewed. --Snowded TALK 16:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the way the Arbcom wants Misplaced Pages to go, totalitarian censorship, and no questioning of the Arbcom allowed. Giano (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Diffs to his 'harassment' of FT2? It's not harassing if FT2 is replying with his nonsense and giving as good as he gets. Peter has been perfectly civil and has engaged in a constructive debate about the merits of the NLP articles in that AfD. And what's wrong with posting deletion debates on NLP topics? Peter has significant support for the deletion of the article. This is a terrible block. naerii 16:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WELCOME BACK

Good to see the block removed Peter, please help all your supporters by not giving any excuse for its reinstatement! We need you here. --Snowded TALK 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all

... who supported the 'unblock'. But on the 'last chance' aspect, no way. I will be perfectly civil about it, but this is far from being over. I brought this AfD because I have a revulsion for the way WP is being used for all sorts of cruft, WP:FRINGEy things and pseudoscience generally. I don't have a personal grudge against FT2 at all, but I do see him as the source of much of this stuff, and I want to get to the bottom of this. FT2 originated nearly all the NLP-related articles, and was instrumental in the blocking or banning of many pro-science editors. I want to see some sort of enquiry about this (indeed have been emailing the Arbcom privately over many months).

So, no 'last chance'. If those who would silence me want to hear no more, than block me for good. Enough said, for today. Thanks again to those who supported the unblock. Peter Damian (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

PS this is not an unblock anyway. I am still blocked. Peter Damian (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please post {{unblock-auto}} below. Tiptoety 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just checked; appears that MBisanz unblocked you around two hours ago. I don't see any autoblocks with your name attached at this time. Try editing? If you're still stuck, I'd suggest following these instructions. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Avruch

Since I am still not unblocked, I would like to reply to the points made by Avruch in the AfD. My analysis leans heavily on points made elsewhere by Probivouac.

Avruch is apparently convinced by the reliability of the sources cited by FT2. Let's take some of these.

1. This is an extraordinary edit. FT2 seems to have plagiarised this dubious source. He then misattributes this passage:

Even if by today's cognitive science research standards some of the original NLP research must be called inadequate, we now can classify NLP research projects as fitting in the field of cognitive science.

to George Lakoff. But the book in question clearly says nothing whatsover about NLP. This attempt to recruit Lakoff as an NLP supporter grossly misrepresents the concepts behind Lakoff’s work, which are not analogous to the purportedly corresponding concepts in NLP.

Indeed, it's outright fabrication. FT2 takes the this passage by the anonymous NLP promoter and puts quotation marks around it so as falsely to attribute it to Lakoff. Lakoff said no such thing.

2. Here, FT2 cites an APA article which simply mentions NLP in passing. What we are after is a reliable independent source that confirms the notability of 'NLP modelling'. This is no such thing.

3. The Sage Handbook FT2 cites, does contain an article by Jo Cooper and Peter Seal. But Jo Cooper and Peter Seal were both certified by Richard Bandler as NLP Trainers, see e.g. their website here. That means it is not an independent source, and almost certainly not a reliable source.

4. FT2 mentions this article. But PSTD, TFT etc are well known energy therapies (qi therapies) and definitely as excellent examples of pseudoscience as NLP as ever there were. See here for a more independent account. (Sceptic's dictionary).

5. I also note the journal he mentions is edited by Charles Figley. I don't know too much about this person, but I don't believe he is entirely legitimate either. I recall he has something to do with 'power therapies'. I will do more research.

In short, every single source I have looked at (I haven't looked at them all) is dubious and tainted in some way. Can someone please locate a truly reliable, independent source that confirms FT2's (and Avruch's, and the other blockmeisters') take on this? Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick comments:

1. You're right on this one, I mis-attributed; not something I often do, but apparently I did that time. It can happen. Looking at the article history, it was fixed within minutes - by the editor on that article who has an NLP connection.
2. Do you really think the APA, in its own journal of all places, would not filter out seriously problematic sources? Im sure if I put a cited article into Nature that stated "according to phrenologists..." they'd require that removed. But the APA left mention of NLP. That suggests it is notable -- people have taken note of it, and reference it, even in a hard nosed APA journal article. That is evidence of notability, which is all it's claimed to be.
3. The publication is an independent source. Professional books frequently contain chapters and sections written on request for the editor/publisher, by specialists in the field. The book evidences that a publisher/editor in the field of counselling handbook writing, references NLP modelling.
4. Read more carefully. That's PTSD, not PSTD (whatever PSTD might be). PTSD is post-traumatic stress disorder, which you've probably heard of, and the cite is in the journal "Traumatology", whose editor has a large number of highly cited articles on traumatology at PubMed, and whose editorial board is openly listed on the publishers website. Appears likely to be peer reviewed to some extent, though would need to check as it 1/ doesnt explicitly say so, and 2/ doesnt seem to be indexed. Again, either way, it is evidence that NLP modelling is noted by professionals outside its own "NLP" world. The rest (qi etc) is your misreading of the cite.
5. Your "belief" about that journal's founder Figley is quite interesting. Apparently Pubmed indicate he writes reputable material. I'm fairly sure Headley is in the background digging with all he can for just one web page or cite to "prove" this, which will completely discredit the entire journal, and hence all sources on the subject universally, which is how he edit warred in 2005-06. I also see you're using Headleydown's favorite reference work from 2005-06, the Skeptics Dictionary. This is basically, the kind of game Headley used to play; for that reason count me out. Others can judge this one themselves if needed.

FT2  19:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, bullshit again. This guy Gallo is the author of the article in question and it looks like obvious New Age bullshit crap again. Look at all the atomic radiation emanating from the guy's face, just like the lurid and garish covers of the other books you cited. This is becoming surreal. No one could make this up. Peter Damian (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats your response to point 5, is it? Your response on points 1-4 is, I guess, that the covers are ugly? Avruch 21:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say 'ugly' I said 'garish'. Which points 1-4 above are you referring to? Mine or FT2's. Happy to look at any publication FT2 or you suggest and do some further research on it. Peter Damian (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

FT's statement about Lakoff

FT2 says “You're right on this one, I mis-attributed; not something I often do, but apparently I did that time. It can happen. Looking at the article history, it was fixed within minutes - by the editor on that article who has an NLP connection”

What actually happened. FT2 added these "serious users of NLP" including Lakoff (bottom of entry). Action Potential (NLP professional Comaze.com) only distracted from the problem and “fixed” another part of the article (still including the ridiculously overblown association of pseudoscience with legit cognitive psychology by an NLPer).

FT2’s bullshit Lakoff statement was still there until moved by Woohookitty for being "POV and promotional". . WHK says (13 June) "I'm extremely frustrated with this article. In the last 2-3 weeks, it seems to have gotten worse. It now reads like a promo booklet. Honestly, if this continues, I'm going to take this article off of my WL and just give up. " How could that be? This was after all the so-called POV warriors had been booted off the article. Peter Damian (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My unblock history

I also wish some admins would stop this 'harassment of FT2' nonsense. If anyone looks up the talk page they will see plenty of harassment of me by FT2, no one seems bothered by that. For the record, there are only three block incidents in my editing history (which is nearly 5 years here, now).

• December 2007. Blocked for supposed legal threats. Unblocked April 2008 by Arbcom, no restrictions, pending further investigation of my case (which has not gone ahead, despite repeated emails to Arbcom and Flo and others - my view is the truth about this matter is too unpalatable for anyone here too handle, so that's that).
• June 2008. Blocked for complaining to FT2 about his block of an anti-NLP editor.
• August 2008. Blocked for raising an AfD about an NLP article. When does the history of many good editors being blocked for their anti-pseudoscience views end? THIS HAS GOT TO STOP. Sorry for shouting. I really can't believe this last incident. Peter Damian (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

See e.g. my complaint here: User_talk:Peter_Damian#comment_by_Damian about the harassment by FT2 - including veiled threats about my RL identity. Peter Damian (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I missed all this. I'm guessing that there are great walls of recent text somewhere that I would need to understand why it happened. Your above User_talk:Peter_Damian#comment_by_Damian raises more questions than answers, and I doubt you will find anyone willing or able to do much about it. We are volunteers, and we are here to write an encyclopedia. Most of us have way too much to do in our own topical area, that we dont have time to give justice to another editor who claims to be wronged. I've done it once or twice, and it takes a hell of a lot of prove anything in such a messy environment where everyone could be a fake, oversight is used with gay abandon at times, and people disappear themselves and others. As a result, seeking justice is rarely a wise course of actions, and in your case the justice is who you are requesting justice from, so if you can get by without it you will live a long and happy wiki-life. You are unblocked and can create content, adjust articles, propose merges, etc. Dont suggest any deletions for a while, and edit NLP topics with care. A self-imposed 0RR or 1RR on NLP topics would be a good way to go for a while; seek assistance rather than reverting - if you are right, others will do the revert for you. If you ever need advice, my talk page is open, and I dont mind the occasional email if the wiki-situation is complex. If you want to edit outside of those limited hours, try editing on a different project, like wikibooks/wikisource/etc, and then point Wikipedians to the book you are writing. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

I hope you can heed the advice in your block log (no more harassment or disruption will be tolerated) irrespective of whether you think it is well founded or not. It's real, but it's meaning is diminishing with every edit. If you put some good editing between you and that block entry, you will be out from under the shadow and can move around with the usual level of care required. It will take a long time before you should take any unnecessary direct action against anything with an FT2 scent to it; again, convince someone else to do it, and if they dont, either you are wrong, they dont have the balls, or they dont know what you are talking about. Hopefully by then you have also learnt some more of the cultural norms here in order to know what to avoid, and when to listen to who. John Vandenberg 13:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd support John here Peter, there are some bigger arbcom issues and you don't want to get swept up in those. I have the NLP pages under watch as I have similar concerns to you about the danger of those articles promoting quasi-religious pseudo-science and in effect being a commercial site. From the support on the recent deletion a lot other editors have similar concerns so you dont need to be a voice crying in the wilderness on this one.. --Snowded TALK 13:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

what the...?

Just noticed you were blocked for a bit. In my opinion, your block log should be annotated to say the accusation in the block log is not correct, in fact if I were of the type that goes for using the word lightly, I'd probably claim the block was "harassment":) Sticky Parkin 03:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. MBisanz erred in describing your behavior and had absolutely no business handing out a "Last chance at WP" dictate. Let me know if you'd like a one minute block annotating this.--Duk 16:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is already the unblock. The block log does not need annotating. Sam Korn 17:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree, Sam, considering the wording of the unblock. A mention of the consensus on WP:AN for unblocking Peter Damian might not come amiss, for instance. I suggest you mention that if you do annotate the log, Duk. Bishonen | talk 17:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC).

Many thanks for this kindness, Bish (and Duk - sorry, don't think we have met?). Peter Damian (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the link Bishonen. Peter, I don't recall meeting you either, just happened across the wp:an section and then your talk page. I also looked at your history and previous account.

In retrospect, MBisanz's explanation for blocking is even more lacking than the first time I read it. Please, anyone reading this, go look carefully at the diffs cited as "harassment". One minute block coming up for block log annotation, give me an email if you're snagged by the autoblocker. --Duk 18:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

email

Would you consider enabling others here to email you, by putting an email addy in your 'preferences' section you can click on at the top left of this page? You could make a new email address especially for wiki so it wouldn't reveal your identity or main email addy to others. Sticky Parkin 03:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I decided against this preference some time ago (I get harassment that way as well). I can always be reached via a PM on Wikipedie Review. Peter Damian (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

FT2 is not the problem.

At WR you said "Thanks for these excellent sources. The next step when I have time is to raise a complaint about FT2's behaviour on-wiki. Does anyone have any suggestions on the right process for this? RFC? Post something on AN?" FT2 is not the problem. The problem is insufficient awareness of Ethical Management of the English Language Misplaced Pages. Let's compare the ethical management of something with slavery in the United States. While the two, in scale and importance, are as different as bumping a toe and dying in a car crash; such a comparison can illuminate the role of an illustrative example. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. That tells you a lot about the institution's acceptance and pervasiveness. But it does not tell you who or what is to blame nor what process is useful in fixing the problem. The same is true with ethical practices at Misplaced Pages. Although there are certain individuals who have been accused of being especially unethical, it does not follow that they are the problem, nor that dealing with them as individuals will fix the problem. So, because of that, the Wikiversity project called "Ethical Management of the English Language Misplaced Pages" does not dwell on individuals so much as on systematic and systemic issues.However example cases are needed to understand the problem. No example is to be understood as fixing of blame for problems of the system as a whole on any specific people. At http://en.wikiversity.org/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia/Case_Studies we are collecting cases studies. It would be unhelpful for you to use Misplaced Pages processes to deal with FT2's behavior on Misplaced Pages as Misplaced Pages lacks proper processes for dealing with those issues. The processes here throw two people (or more) into a pit, tell them to attack each other with accusations, then bans one side for in essense attacking the person he was just told to attack. It is crazy making and unhelpful. Instead please add the FT2 case to http://en.wikiversity.org/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia/Case_Studies. Let's solve the actual problem, and not blame individuals. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter, this is a great perspective by WAS 4.250, but the last part is terrible advice. That project was initiated by WAS 4.250 and others, and they can easily add this case if they want to. There is no need for you to get involved in a very contentious Wikiversity project. I've had a quick look at that project; it could turn out to be very useful, but not if it is primarily made up of people who have had major run-ins with arbcom and lost - that will result in it being discredited, and perhaps even terminated. For you to take a dispute of any sort that you have with FT2, or en.wp ARBCOM in general, to another WMF project is not wise. Someone else should do it and, based on comments by Giano and Bishonen, there are people who are vocal in this department and should be willing if it was a worthwhile endeavor. Talk to these people. If you must add this NLP dispute to that Wikiversity project, I suggest that you frame it around the broader issue of NLP and not primarily targeted at FT2, and also that you wait a few weeks at least so that it is clear it isnt merely in response to the anger at being blocked. (Collect diffs now if you are worried that they might disappear). There is no "pretend I didnt do that" button. John Vandenberg 16:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for improving on my advice. I agree with what you just said. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

J, thank you for the advice, and WAS thank you for the invitation but, under the circumstances I have to agree with J. J, please note there was a consensus that the block was misguided and an unfortunate mistake. I didn't take it seriously in the first place. There was no harassment intended. I do have a passionate commitment to the project, and particularly a commitment to removing pseudoscience and cruft from the encyclopedia, and I will continue to do that. That is the most important thing at the end of the day, don't you think? Best wishes Peter Damian (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I echo John's comments here; any study which allows the concept of the supposed "ID cabal" to go unchallenged and makes no comment about the long-term tendentiousness of pro-ID editors is not useful to anyone in understanding one of the most serious issues on Misplaced Pages, that of long-term civil POV-pushing. The pro-ID crowd are the problem in that particular case, not the victims. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. My concern also is what appears to be the systematic blocking or banning of pro-science editors. I have identified two of these on FT2's talk page. It is not the banning of individual editors that is the concern here (that could go for comment or for Arbcom). It is what appears to be the banning of editors for the kind of view they are advocating, under the pretence of the new 'civility laws'. That is a serious problem for the project that we should be addressing fairly and squarely. It is all very well to claim that the occasional lack of civility, or anger, is driving away good content contributors. It is the other way round. This ridiculous preference of civility over content is having a profoundly negative effect on the project, and is demonstrably driving quality content contributors away. This has to end. And please don't call this 'harassment of FT2'. Disguising valid, principled objections to the systematic persecution of content-contributors as 'harassment' is the problem here. Peter Damian (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Headley Down

I'd rather not, to be honest. The main reason why I don't even come close to working on articles like that anymore is because of that whole situation. I do some admin work now but I mostly do disam work and categorize templates. So I'm not interested in getting back into that muck. Sorry. --Woohookitty 05:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Muck. Mess. --Woohookitty 11:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you know about this. That's the context that the blocks took place in. And Headley was hardly the only one blocked. --Woohookitty 01:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Peace process: messages here

I left a message on a number of pages regarding pseudoscience issues in Misplaced Pages. It's one I have a big problem with (I've been editing Misplaced Pages for more than five years. Recently I reviewed two cases (one clear cut, the other less so) where it was obvious that the wrong decisions had been made (largely resulting, in my view, from the lack of expert knowledge by some administrators). I would like to initiate a process for group review of these cases: not to right old wrongs or anything like that, but as a way of looking to the future and trying to improve the project. I think policies like WP:FRINGE need some serious work (or perhaps guidelines placed under the policy itself, to give non-expert editors an idea of how to use resources like MEDLINE, how to answer common pro-pseudoscience arguments, and so on). For example, if someone does produce a reliable source, apparently showing or suggesting that there is evidence for some pseudoscientific topic, how do we deal with that? Should there be the assumption of default, that if there is evidence of pseudoscientific subject, the burden is to prove that it is NOT pseudoscience (currently, it seems to me, the burden is to show that it IS pseudoscience).

If enough interest is shown in setting up such a project or review process, I will create a separate page. I do understand that with the failure of projects like expert retention and similar (I set such a project years ago), there may be lack of energy to pursue this. On the other hand, Misplaced Pages has a much higher profile in the media and on the internet than 2 years ago, and I think as educators or writers or scientists we have a public duty to keep the cruft at bay. Best Peter Damian (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I found a useful summary of the arbcoms about 'pseudoscience' here Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases, not that I've read it lol. I don't know all the details, but basically it's not a word that's all that helpful to use when talking to believers, (although perhaps fun to use), similar in debate to using the word 'cult.' I would dispute that there's any evidence for NLP that's recognised by professionals uninvolved in the subject. If it really could cure phobias in a few minutes, it would be available on the NHS. Having said that, I don't get involved in articles such as these to any depth nowadays as it's infuriating and unpleasant. I saw it all at Morgellons where the truth is obvious but we're not allowed to say so.:) "Believers" of these subjects lurk over them and quickly return them to a sympathetic version or one pushing their workshops etc. I fought it briefly on the master cleanse article but it's not worth it unless your lucky enough to have your edit stick. The only way of doing so is to stick to the barely-touched articles- which is very boring. So no, I'm not to much interested in wrangling with believers- let them have their fun I say. The way I suggest going ahead if you can't get some of the articles deleted is to ensure the no doubt readily available criticisms in WP:RS are included, to ensure WP:NPOV and consensus reality is restored.:) The only one I routinely check is Tony Robbins for some reason, where User:Rray often helped out too. It's nice and satisfying enough if other editors agree with you I suppose- like everything on wiki. As to the sources, let them speak for themselves and I suspect the "consensus reality" ones will outnumber and outclass the ones supporting the fringe theory for every alt med and so on topic- either that or the subject isn't notable enough to have been considered worth discussing.Sticky Parkin 06:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S.- this might amuse you. Sticky Parkin 07:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page Peter. Yes I think the mediation idea is a good one, hopefully it will be picked up. The issue of academic knowledge/pseudo-science is a difficult one. It is undoubtedly the case that we get as much tyranny of the proselytes as we do wisdom of crowds. I was being beaten up by someone the other day while packing for a trip to the Academy to pick up a best paper award and I was sorely tempted to play status, but that is not really done. We do have the "attention of an expert" tag but that sometimes works ad sometimes doesn't. I'll happily take part in any task force on this but I probably share Sticky Parkin's cynicism about much changing. --Snowded TALK 10:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Recheck

I'll get back on your other message later, when work ends. In the meantime I noticed the comment that I'd got an attribution by Lakoff wrong (it was a statement by someone discussing him, not by him himself, corrected by another user minutes later). I wonder if you'd be up to checking the other cites at this page and if you find any others that are questionable, let me know on my talk page? If you can't, then I'll take a look next week myself. As they are all linked to web cites, it should be easy to verify them. Thanks. FT2  13:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not only did you get the one above wrong, you made a much worse mistake. On the page you mention at the end there is another extensive quote attributed to Lakoff. This a complete misattribution. The quote was made by an NLP promoter, not by Lakoff (who has most likely never heard of NLP, and certainly never mentioned it in his books). And I'm very annoyed that you include this in your personal attack on me here. How dare you accuse other people of 'selective editing and falsification of cites' when this appears (whether deliberately or not) to be what you are doing. And this error was not corrected 'within minutes' but is still there.
• Many of the links are dead, suggest you weed out these. Many of the others (if not all of them) are misleading, in that they imply no endorsement by the university or hospital or institution concerned. If the human resources department of a university chooses to employ an NLP trainer for admin or management courses, that does not imply an academic endorsement of the subject. Management training has been so heavily infiltrated by NLP practitioners that it would be hard to be otherwise. My own organisation sent me and others on an expensive NLP 'management science' course many years ago (I protested then that this was pseudoscientific nonsense and a waste of public money, but senior management shrugged their shoulders).
• In summary, check your sources first, and in particular remove the Lakoff attribution as it is potentially slanderous and a BLP issue. Peter Damian (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear

You would do yourself a world of good by removing or rephrasing . Thatcher 18:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter I really think we could use some dispassionate academic language. If we have a misquote of Lakoff (which on the face of it we do) then a patient questioning with evidence will get community support. Confusing it with all sorts of other material and intemperate language means that people will just turn off and not listen. I hope you won't take offence at me saying this, we need you involved in these areas but you are just giving ammunition to the other side here. --Snowded TALK 18:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes sorry I will redact it - I was on the point of doing so when I wrote it but was called down for dinner. I'll do that now - it did annoy me with this Avruch person butting in - who is he? - FT2 asked me to comment here (see above) and I was reply to a comment by FT2 on his talk page addressed to me. I don't see the problem. Peter Damian (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There. Could someone possibly encourage Avruch not to get involved in this way? I do have an exceedinly short fuse and he is not helping. On the false attribution, follow the links, it should be obvious. It is slanderous because it links into the main encylopedia, and it blatantly misstates a connection between George Lakoff, a distinguished professor of linguistics, and NLP. There are potential BLP issues. Peter Damian (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please again note my phrasing above where I say " appears (whether deliberately or not) to be what you are doing". As you see, I am not claiming the falsification was deliberate or intended. Peter Damian (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling it out: FT2 recommended I study this page of citations of serious users of NLP. I did and I found a bit right at the very end where quotes supportive of NLP are directly attributed to Lakoff. But if you follow the link provided, you find exactly the same quotes in a review of Lakoff's book by an NLP practitioner (Thom Hartmann). Indeed, in the same review Hartmann explicitly says Lakoff never mentions NLP. So this is careless citation at best. OK?

Lakoff is much misused and I have seen nothing in his work (although I have not read it all) that would justify anyone in NLP claiming him as authority. Establishing that sort of error, and tracking down the others is one of the best thing we can do here. It is a pseudoscience issue however, anything remotely similar gets claimed as authority. --Snowded TALK 19:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can certainly understand that the powerless Peter Damian would get irritated when a persistent supporter of FT2 (with the power of arbcom behind him) jumps in, unasked and unaddressed, to sneer about the "screaming" of the underdog. It's cheap, that's what that is. Cheap and risk-free. I guess I wouldn't have called Avruch, uh, a whatever, for it, if it had been me... but I would have advised him to let FT2 speak for himself. Advised him tersely. However, Peter.. I'm afraid me "encouraging" Avruch to anything whatever would have the opposite effect, sorry. Bishonen | talk 19:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC).

I don't know that this is truly the case. I like to think I can still take reasonable advice, even if I disagree with the person giving it on many other issues. I know it seems like I run to FT2's defense each time he comes up for criticism - perhaps I do. I feel bad for him, because he's become the whipping boy of the arbitration committee - everyone takes out their frustrations with the committee on him, and now on content he has written (whatever its merits). In this case, it was the accusations and harsh tone of Peter's comments that caused me to defend FT2 in the AfD, here and on his talkpage.

His analytical methods and his, er, verbose explanations make him more vulnerable - he provides far more for others to criticise, and looks to be the most criticised member of the committee primarily because the rest of them are simply terse. For reasons I don't understand, FT2 typically doesn't defend himself vigorously even when its clear that he has a strong basis to do so (including, for example, the prior involvement of the rest of the committee in the OrangeMarlin case - for which he has born almost exclusive criticism).

Perhaps I gave too much weight to the context of Peter's history in my reaction to his recent comments and the proposed deletions. No blood, money, or deep principles are at stake. Its possible that Peter's block log and the discussions I've seen about him have him wrong - he's clearly intelligent and far more educated than I am (as are you, Bishonen), but if you are in the advice giving mood perhaps you can advise him that if his remarks were calmer and left off with accusations against the integrity of other editors he would get farther and accomplish more here. Avruch 21:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't use edit summaries like "arselicker". They do nothing to further your cause, and simply provide "ammunition" for those that you seem to have a problem with. I'm about as uninvolved in this as you can get, besides deleting the article that you nominated for deletion. Keeper ǀ 76 21:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Apologies for the edit summary, I got angry again. But I wish you would look more carefully at this sort of case before you cry 'harassment' or get your block spectacles out. On FT2 not replying on his own behalf just look at the top of this page where he calls me a " hostile, defamatory, banned user", and saying that a rebuttal of some earlier claims might "really bad for him in real life". This is really unpleasant stuff and I would have got banned for it if I had said anything like that. Or here, where FT2 makes all sorts of allegations most of which are blatantly untrue (and yet he accuses me of being 'economical with the truth'). Finally (practically the last straw) another personal attack on me, calling me 'a user with little knowledge and minimal research, who has recently been proxy editing for a banned user who used to virulently sock war on this topic', and referring to 'selective editing and falsification of cites'. Eh? As I pointed out, a small amount of careful checking would have shown that an eminent linguist like Lakoff could not have been the source of those quotes.
  • So, forgive me if I occasionally lose my temper when there seems to be such a blatant double standard going on here. Peter Damian (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't go getting blocked now, just when you've started getting into the wiki again and plenty of people are appreciating your edits. Sticky Parkin 11:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake

This is getting silly and needlessly personalised. Tempers are frayed. Well, I know all about that.

FT2 has emailed me to discuss an idea he has, which is to have a sort of group article mediation, and I've suggested that people are recruited from both sides of the debate, a list of all NLP related articles is created, and a triage is performed with clearly notable, clearly merge/delete worthy (like Affinity or whatever it was) and marginal cases that need to be reviewed, sourced and then debated for notability. I think that can work, as long as all involved can keep to content and not each other's throats. Misplaced Pages has in the past done a great job of covering contentious topics by encouraging active collaboration between opponents, and I don't think that either Peter or FT2 is so bullheaded as to be unable to work together in this way. Yes, I know about prior bans and other history. I believe FT2's idea has merit, and I would like to see it at least tried. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the frayed temper. Yes, FT2's idea has merit, let's pursue that avenue. Peter Damian (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, you might want to enable email or send me an email - sometimes it helps to vent in private. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - generally I like to keep things public, though. Peter Damian (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

see them as a glance

put in the search bar "Category:Neuro-linguistic programming" and click on the three subcategories listed at the top for more. But this subcategory might be your favourite "Category:Neuro-Linguistic Programming concepts and methods". Sticky Parkin 11:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - that caught a few more - the full list is here. I'm going through and marking with an asterix the obviously useless ones. Peter Damian (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages

Please don't place a new comment in the middle of another user's post. This makes it extremely confusing to readers.

I have removed the off-topic chat from the ANI page. If you would like to continue discussion of the merits of the Pearl necklace (sexuality) article, please do so by email or on talk pages. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought on my part

It's always been my considered opinion that when an editor is developing a page in user space and specifically writes "Kindly do not not edit this page", then even copy editing should be left to the editor unless specifically requested, particularly when they indicate it is very much a work in progress. You may well hold different views, but it is something I urge you to keep in mind, because I am not unique in my thinking. Best, Risker (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Although what it actually says is "Kindly do not not edit this page - or feel the need the block me, if my views do not 100% coincide with yours". Just copyediting, but will of course stop, if you think right. Peter Damian (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, Peter. Given some recent events, I suspect the editor involved is a little more sensitive than usual about active participation in his userspace. Best, Risker (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Er yes, quite, wise advice, thank you. All the best. Peter Damian (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

On why canvassing is bad

Peter, I totally know where you were coming from. I had similar feelings-- I should tell all my friends, you should tell all yours, and that's how a democracy happens. The trick about canvassing is that it can be abused to undermine consensus. Because on Misplaced Pages, we usually have very small samples-- getting seven opinions on a single article can sometimes be doing better than average.

Now, if it turns out we got 7 random opinions picked out of a hat, and 6 of them agree that a specific change should be made-- chances are, we have a consensus that the change is a good one. We can vaguely guess that about 6 out of 7 wikipedians would think the change is good.

On the other hand, if we have one user who secretly emailed 5 of his closest friends and they all show up pretending no to have talked to each other-- then probably we can't really guess that 6 out 7 Wikipedians agree anymore-- 1 out of 2 agree, but the one that agrees just goes out of his way to bring people who he knows will agree with him. And if that was the way we did things, then pretty soon, we wouldn't be making decisions based on consensus anymore, we'd just be making decisions based on who has the most friends that are online today.

Just food for thought. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these thoughts but you make this assumption that people can't think out an issue for themselves. In any case people can still email each other, or discuss the issue on Misplaced Pages Review, so why not allow this openly? And of course when it comes to promotional editing or fringe groups by definition there is off-wiki canvassing going on. You can't prevent it, and it hurts mostly those who have the best interests of the project, and encourages all sorts of evil doings off-wiki. So, bring back canvassing, I say. Best Peter Damian (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Epistemic theory of miracles

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Epistemic theory of miracles, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough of that. The theory is mentioned by Augustine and Spinoza, and is important. And please don't delete the other references to the characters cited by Varro. They are referenced in the quotation. The fact that they are mentioned by Augustine and no one else is in itself interesting. Peter Damian (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has now been nominated for a discussion as to whether it should be deleted. Please follow the link on the article if you wish to contribute to the discussion. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait until I have finished. Peter Damian (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Preview

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Regarding your edit(s) to Epistemic theory of miracles, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User warning

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, as you did with Epistemic theory of miracles. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User warning 2

This message relates to this edit. Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User warning 3

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, as you did with Epistemic theory of miracles. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Further removals of the tag may lead to you being blocked for violating the three-revert rule. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User warning 4

Please stop. If you continue removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Epistemic theory of miracles, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User warning 5

You appear to have made some reverts lately on Epistemic theory of miracles. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in blocking of accounts. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Get off my back. Peter Damian (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have had to report you to WP:AN3 for excessive reverting. You are likely to be blocked. There is nothing else that I can do now. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Epistemic theory of miracles

Hi,

Once an article has been nominated for deletion, you cannot remove the AfD notice from the page. The process will continue with or without the tag, but without it many other editors (those who don't frequent the AfD discussions) would be unaware that the article has been nominated, and thus they won't be aware that the debate is occurring. In this case I don't think that there is anything to worry about, as I'm aware that the subject is notable, and I'll assist with some references to help get it through AfD. I'd be very surprised if consensus was to delete. Nevertheless, it is important that the tag stays present - if only so that others can help with teh article, and because continued deletion will probably result in a block for a WP:3RR violation. - Bilby (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but it's ridiculous it got to this. I clearly put an 'in use' template on (as I have had problems with this sort of thing before, and was assured this would cure the problem). This subject is very important in the Western tradition, and I'm surprised (a) there wasn't an article before (b) why it is being nominated for deletion. I have been contributing on these subjects for 5 years on Misplaced Pages now and this treatment is disgraceful. Peter Damian (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PLease stop removing the AFD notice from the top of pages undergoing deletion consideration, such removals are considered vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 12:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm inclined to agree that it should have wiated until you had a bit more time, but it is a fairly obscure (albeit notable) topic - I'm only aware of it because I studied Phil. of Religion many years ago. :) The real worry, though, is that once this has started, if you keep removing the tag you'll end up blocked. So at this point we're better off adding some refs making sure that it isn't deleted. - Bilby (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning on continually removing the AFD content from the top of the article. A debate on it has already been opened, and you've been warned several times not to remove it. Remove it again and you will be temporarily blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. As Bilby has said, your best bet now is to expand the article, add references and make sure it is a good article so it isn't deleted, but continually removing the tags isn't helping the case. Canterbury Tail talk 13:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your bullshit. Peter Damian (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Canterbury Tail talk 12:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone is behaving like a complete idiot, I can't tell him he is behaving like a complete idiot? Or a moron, a fuckwit, &c? Peter Damian (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Preferably not. The AfD would have been laughed out of the room anyway, so screaming obscenities was of questionable added value. The idea that established users can simply get away with ignoring WP:CIVIL is repugnant anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't scream obscenities. This 'culture of civility' has to stop. If people are behaving like fools and making a laughing stock of the project, someone has to tell them. Peter Damian (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User warning 6

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop leaving these harrassing and bullying messages on my talk page. As I say, go back to garage bands. Just think carefully before you try something as stupid as this again. And stop this 'personal attacks' bullshit. Peter Damian (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Block threats

Stop this bullshit. What the hell are you talking about? Why don't YOU stop your disruptive and vindictive behaviour on this project. I start work on an article, before I am 10 minutes into it, and despite the references to Spinoza and Augustine (surely enough to establish notability) you slap on this stupid template. It is extremely off-putting to work on a difficult article with this stuff going on, so I removed it, naturally. As a suggestion: don't interfere with work in progress: that is what the 'in use' sign is for. And stop this aggressive and bullying behaviour, it is more uncivil and unpleasant than anything I have done. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. Stifle (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read something written more than 10 years ago. Peter Damian (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Temporary Wikipedian userpages