User talk:PiPhD

Aloha
Aloha PiPhD, and mahalo for your very kind comments on my talk page. Unfortunately, the Hawaii history articles have indeed been something of a battleground lately especially. As you no doubt have noted, a certain ideologue who feels he "owns" the articles sits like a troll at the entrance to the Hawaii history articles. I've tried working with him, but unfortunately I have come to the conclusion that he really is incorrigible, as a visit to Talk:Kingdom_of_Hawaii may illustrate. We clearly have a problem. Unfortunately my good faith meter has run out and this has been going on far too long -- life is short and I'm not inclined to suffer fools any longer.

So, your help would definitely be appreciated. In fact, the more forces we can muster, the better. That said, just for the record: despite what the other "problem editor" thinks, I am no radical. I assiduously stay out of local politics, but at the same time I am motivated by a desire not to add further insult to a historical injustice by trying to whitewash it.

Anyhow, we've asked another editor to help mediate this, and simply as a show of good faith I've unilaterally agreed not to revert the articles for 24 hours until the mediator has had a chance to look things over. But, once 7pm HST on Monday hits, it's open season to change back Blount Report, Morgan Report, Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, Legal status of Hawaii, Apology Resolution, Kingdom of Hawaii, and Liliuokalani. Given that each editor only can revert 3 times per article per day, these can quickly get used up in an edit war, so if I were to ask for your help, it would be to put those pages on your watchlist and revert if you see something you find seriously objectionable (you know what I mean). Also, the main source of authority said editor bases his claims upon is the Morgan Report; whatever credible published sources you can come up with that directly contradict or dispute the accuracy of the MR would be excellent. I'm least familiar with a lot of the stuff coming from the Hawaiian Studies Dept. at UH, so that would be great. The MR is easy enough to discredit, but the more sources, the better. Also see the matrix on []: I'm not finished with the specific defensible positions yet, but the more sources to back each one up, the better.

My goal is not to see the articles turned into a soapbox for either side, but truly something that is NPOV, which it is a very long way from being now.

As for your re-direct problem, I added my vote on the [deletion review page] -- for a speedy relist. In fact, I'm not even sure what the article refers to, but I will be happy to help as appropriate. Cheers, Arjuna 10:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Aloha PiPhD! Despite the emotional problems Arjuna has had dealing with me, I am more than happy to work with any editors, regardless of their personal POV, in good faith to improve any and all articles here.  If you have specific concerns with edits I've made, or references I've provided, please let me know and I'll be more than happy to work with you to address your concerns.


 * I would, however, suggest that you avoid being part of Arjuna's "forces" in the upcoming "edit war" he plans on waging. We can improve these articles without resorting to sock-puppetry, virtual or actual, and don't need to worry about 3RR if we are acting in good faith.


 * As for credible published sources that dispute the accuracy of the Morgan Report, I would argue that most of the post-1970 pro-sovereignty literature is a bit biased, and that the most credible sources (which Arjuna seems to agree with) are Daws, Kuykendall and Russ. Russ does a fairly good job of dissecting specific testimony in Morgan, but despite Arjuna's claim, Morgan, on the whole, is not "easy enough to discredit"...that's an awfully broad brush to be waving at a report which includes testimony both damaging and supportive of the annexationists.  I'm not even sure if Arjuna has bothered to read it yet.


 * In any case, even though I may disagree with such sources as biased, so long as we are careful in attribution and characterization of statements, I don't think it is unreasonable to add material that is disparaging of the Morgan Report, or the Blount Report for that matter. I look forward to any and all help you can provide in improving all of these articles, and hope we can work well together!  Mahalo! --JereKrischel 23:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Aloha all. JK clearly feels threatened that his "ownership" of the articles is about to end. His fear is well-founded. Arjuna 00:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the issue of the Blount Report versus the Morgan Report. Would both of you please send me a private e-mail at pi+at+upi+dot+cc (without the plus signs), perhaps CC:ing each other, and offer me your respective top priority information-to-be-added in regard to what specifically each of you would like to add next? If you have read my personal area or read about my concept of PiALOGUE then you may have noticed that I specialize in both disambiguation and mediation. Since you both have a strong point-of-view then this tells me that BOTH of you are missing something in your dialogue together. Perhaps one or both of you simply needs to learn to explain your point-of-view in a way that the other person CAN listen to. This may require an adjustment in languaging as every genius tends to have their own personal language which is differentiated from the understanding or awareness of the status-quo human being. Outright denial of the other person's position does not add to or further the overall dialogue (or PiALOGUE). Okay? Thanks! :o) --  PiPhD 21:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hawaii nation
The redirect will be made as you requested, as soon as the deletion review closes.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

justified true belief
Since Aristotle, "knowledge" has been defined as a "true justified belief." This notion of knowledge has been fundamental for our understanding for 2400 years. The phrase "true justified belief" is pretty much lodged into the brain of anyone who has taken a philosophy course for the past two thousand years. The thing that makes it a relevant phrase today is the fact that it was only until the 20th century, that a counterexample existed. The Gettier problem is an example of where one may have a true, justified, belief and you still wouldn't call it knowledge.

Interestingly, philosophers have a pretty good grip on truth, and belief. However it is justification that is still an interesting concept. Greg Bard 11:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that YOU know what YOU are talking about however you did not "date" your references as being antiquated (aside from saying that Aristotle said it). You presented it as current fact which is NOT accurate. If you express your idea within that context then I will leave it alone. However, if you attempt to have the phrase "justified true belief" stand on its own merit then I will continue to CORRECT you. Do you understand? -- PiPhD 05:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey listen Dr. you seem to have a pretty firm grip yourself there! My goodness. First of all I wasn't involved with this template prior to our discussion at all. I think you are addressing someone else's idea there. The phrase "true justified belief" itself is a notable phrase and there are several places that link to that phrase which is redirected (other than that former version of the template). I agree with you that there should be more said about it. I do not oppose its exclusion by yourself. Although, in the future a link would be appropriate if there was a good place with more on it. My note to you was merely to address to an earlier statement (yours?): "In other words there is no such thing as the phrase outside of the definitions of the individual words."  It is precisely the example I gave above in the Gettier problem that makes the distinction between "knowledge" and "true justified belief" a meaningful one. I think I understand you. It is incorrect to believe that "justified true belief" doesn't stand on its own merit. I'm going to go ahead and correct that statement. Do you understand me? Be well, Greg Bard 07:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Greg's got a point here. What he's saying reflects academic philosophy as it's actually taught, not how you'd like it to be taught. Please be civil and bear in mind that your insistence that something is true does not make it true.MartinPoulter (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Chaos-TV-show.png
Thanks for uploading File:Chaos-TV-show.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Chaos TV Show Graphic Image
The graphic image that I uploaded to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Spezialy has the same authorization for use as this one: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chaos_%28serie_televisiva%29.png except that I do not read Italian. This is not for my own personal benefit, it is for the documentation of actual fact. Is there a way to use the above file instead? If you could help make it proper or advise me I would appreciate it very much. Thanks. PiPhD (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
I've removed your tags here. The article has numerous sources and that tag is for articles with very few sources. The statements in the lead are sourced in the body of the article - we try to keep inline citations out of the lead usually. If you have any specific issues still, please take them to the article's talk page and don't replace the tags. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You can not state a flat-out lie and then say that you are sourcing it "later" in sources that are prejudicial. -- PiPhD (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Good thing we didn't do that then. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Holocracy


The article Holocracy has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:SOAP Non-notable word/concept

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Skrelk (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Holocracy


A tag has been placed on Holocracy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Illia Connell (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Holocracy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Holocracy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Holocracy & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Illia Connell (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * m.o.p 18:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Jpgordon, there is zero mention of your complaint about me on on the M.O.P. page. Please advise. PiPhD (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you, please, help me here with some explanation on why this user is blocked?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any notes on this one, and the checkuser log isn't useful; it might have been a mistake, but at any rate, feel free to unblock if you see fit. --jpgordon:==( o ) 06:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If does not respond than can you  unblock me?