Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:45, 13 August 2008

==*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)

• Temporary Wikipedian userpages