User talk:Six words/Archive 1

Request for Arbitration
Please note that I have referred User:Jörg ÖA to the Arbitration Committee for their consideration. I have listed you as a party in the dispute. Let me know if you would not like to be involved. The request can be found at Requests_for_arbitration. You may add a statement of 500 words in this section that describes your experiences. --Linkswechsel (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Elton vs. Simon
It's a remake/spinoff/whatever you want to call it of Kenny vs. Spenny. That means it's a related topic, and as a result, like you pointed out, it's in the same category as Ed vs. Spencer. Having the template makes it easier for navigation. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Deutschophone
I don't mind that my image was removed, but you don't need to make fun of my work! (Government Plot?) The image is just an SVG image of the previous PNG image that was on the page. Since I am new to Inkscape, I don't know how to make little boxes for the nations that speak the language regionally, so I just colored nations all together. I am getting close to making little boxes for the images, so just give me some time to work on that and it will look just like the old one. Please and thank you. — Nuclear  Vacuum  16:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh... so sorry, please forgive me. ^^; I thought you were the one who said that, I just get angry when people comment negatively about me. —  Nuclear  Vacuum  16:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarity and Truth?
Six words, that comment was not directed towards you or our discussion. I understand that you disagree with me on the underlying point, as we were having a similar discussion earlier. But the progression of our discussion was very different from the one with this user, in my view. In our discussion, neither of us were repeating the same point over and over, ad nauseam, blind to additional reasons without saying anything fresh. Also, I thought there was much more consideration and reflection in our discussion. Dbrisinda (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. I don't have a problem with people who have opinions different from mine, so this won't stand in the way of us or anyone else involved working together constructively on homeopathy's article and talk page. However, reading (wrong!) accusations of citing out of context (whomever they're directed at) annoys me. --Six words (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand. I'm just having serious (genuine) difficulty matching up quantitative results that show something very close to an even split (in terms of evidence of effects beyond placebo), with qualitative conclusions that are interpreted as wholly negative. Dbrisinda (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, and I would have preferred a longer, more detailed discussion/evaluation of the trials' outcomes, too, but the paper was published that way. Do you know if this review was cited in other articles? I can't access the Web of Knowledge outside university, so I can't search for it on SCI for the next weeks. Would be interesting to see how other researchers responded to the review. --Six words (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable notes
If lecture notes and a controlable mention of a legal decision on a laboratory website are not reliable sources which are?--Ha-y Gavra (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:RS and WP:MEDRS discuss this in a much more detailed way, but in short one can say that reliable sources for medicine-related articles are preferably published in peer reviewed medical journals and textbooks by major academic publishers. In case your lecture notes cite sources, there's a good chance that those qualify as reliable sources. I know being bold is encouraged here at Wikipedia, but on a topic like homeopathy any edit that goes beyond copyediting or minor rewording is likely to be challenged. Therefore you should discuss changes on the talk page first and get consensus for your addition.
 * The "laboratory website" (boiron.com is the website of a manufacturer who - of course - advertises his product there) doesn't give the reason for homeopathy's "recognition" by the EU, and it mentions neither Hahnemann nor Hippocrates, so even if we considered it to be a reliable source your addition wouldn't be verifiable.
 * I hope this answers your question sufficiently, if not feel free to ask for additonal details. --Six words (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy ‎
Already reported to WP:AN3. I'm going to bed (and I'm listed as "involved" on one of the Homeopathy ‎ArbComm rulings, so I couldn't block, or even semiprotect, on my own). If you want to, please keep updating the entry at WP:AN3. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I restored the wording as it was before edit warring started for one last time. If it doesn't stick I'll definitely update your report. --Six words (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Aspartame. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. TickleMeister (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * TM, I didn't see any personal attacks, except in your reply where you refer to "covert motives", PR shilling etc etc. Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Also, giving a "welcome to wikipedia" message to an established editor is very rude and amounts to WP:BAITing. Please start being civil and engaging with other editors. Verbal chat  10:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, due to my limited English skills I can't make what I consider to be a civil criticism more civil. If you feel it was uncivil, you can ask for outside views on WP:WQA. In the meantime please don't template me - if you have something to say you can use your own words, preferrably in a civil tone, though frankly I don't really care about your tone towards me. What I do care about is your tone towards others, and think that your accusations of tag teaming or cabals are quite uncivil and won't help you gaining consensus for the inclusion of what I think is low- to no-quality sources.--Six words (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I felt your comment was a personal attack, as it directly commented on my profession and status as a scientist, as well as impugning my motives. Aside from that, I find your characterisation of my sources (PubMed, WebMD, NYT, Guardian) as "low- to no-quality" simply astonishing. I suppose if I produced a pro-product review by hand-picked "experts" who are (apparently) known givers of industry-exonerating comments, you'd be effusive in agreement. I also suspect yr low edit count combined with yr close knowledge of wikilaw a sign that you are a habitué of wp using a secondary account to block my edits, like a few others doing the same thing. It's most unusual. TickleMeister (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You brought up both your profession and your motives, so why wouldn't I be allowed to comment on that? Anyone taking a closer look at your own contribs can find you're commenting on editors' motives based on less. I can assure you I'm neither a secondary account of anyone, nor do I have one, and I don't think any of the others participating on the Aspartame talk is/does, but if you think otherwise you could ask someone with CheckUser rights to find out for sure. When you cite a "review" (I don't think this is a review in the scientific sense) that is published on DORway (a quick look on that page is enough to find out they're a "site dedicated to informing the public about the many unhealthy aspects of aspartame" that "was created out of frustration, stemming from the inability to motivate elected officials, government officials and the media/medical system to inform the public and to effect the removal of this substance from the human food chain." - a.k.a. a self-published fringe source - isn't even RS, let alone MEDRS) I feel confident to say that source is low-quality. When I take a further look at this source and discover that it's not even accurate, I feel I can go further and say it's a no-quality source. Of course you're allowed to think differently, but I'm not the only one thinking that this isn't a good source - you need to look no further then to the author's reply to this comment. MEDRS says WebMD is an acceptable source, but it doesn't say it's superior to peer-reviewed scientific journals. In fact, it states the opposite. I've said it on the Aspartame talk and I'll say it here: extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. I don't agree with you that your sources are extraordinarily good. A review by experts, unaware of the source of funding, published in a high quality toxicology journal is a good source, especially if it confirms the findings of other reviews. You're free to dislike the funding source and its conclusions, but personal anecdotes and low-level evidence won't invalidtate its conclusions. The aspartame article currently says "the weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a non-nutritive sweetener" so what would be needed to change that are a bunch of high quality studies indicating that at these levels (10 mg/kg bw?) it's unsafe. So far I haven't seen any of those.--Six words (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The reviews exonerating asp. may be right, I don't know, and neither do you. There are many drugs and chemicals that were consider totally safe for years and years ... until someone found they weren't. May I ask you to read this article copied from the Scientific American? I have personal experience of side effects, and that does admittedly make me wish to edit in the other side of the debate, an action deemed verboten it seems, which is not the usual way in wikipedia (which is why I find the really vehement and trenchant opposition curious). As an inclusionist, I simply cannot see why both sides of the debate cannot be equally presented, despite the current majority scientific opinion. Things can change. Why are readers not allowed to see the whole argument, in all its complexity? Hiding or suppressing the dissenting studies, or mentioning them only in a derogatory way, seems wholly unencyclopedic. I continue to wonder if the vast profits this compound generates is not behind some or all of the opposition to my edits, which is not necessarily a comment on you or any specific editor. TickleMeister (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, scientific consensus can change, and we'll adjust the article accordingly if and when that happens. As long as the scientific consensus is that aspartame safe (and no, it's not only "industry funded studies" saying that, it's also the FDA, the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Food, the UK's Food Standards Agency, the French Food Safety Agency, Germany's Federal Institute for Risk Assessment and others), that is what the article should say - Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. You have yet to present high quality studies that find aspartame isn't safe at or under the ADI (that's what the article says, not that it's safe at any dose). Please don't waste my time by citing case reports or internet anecdata, stick to RCTs or studies of equal or higher quality. About the Scientific American article: Yes, "bad science" happens, but using that to dismiss every industry funded study is a faulty generalisation. --Six words (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well of course the article should say that it is safe according to the majority opinion ... where did I say otherwise? Please don't put words in my mouth. There are studies that say it may not be safe for susceptible individuals at doses close to the ADI. Re-read my Temp edit. TickleMeister (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we're looking at two different versions of the working page - what I see is that you removed the part about aspartame being safe at current levels of consumption from the lead and instead inserted some lines about what I would call historical concerns. Why do you think the lead needs to say that initially (or a few years after approval) over half of the researchers had some concerns about aspartame's safety, but it doesn't need to say that today it's considered safe? You're not including the majority view in the lead, but then ask me how I get the idea that you want to give fringe views undue weight? --Six words (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's considered universally safe today, why is the UK government investigating it again? You are ignoring the fact that this is not necessarily a settled issue.TickleMeister (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, about two hours ago you said that the article should state that it's safe according to the scientific consensus, now we're back at reporting what might be scientific consensus next year? I'm not ignoring anything, I'm merely waiting for it to actually happen before I include it. Right now none of us knows what Prof Atkin's study will find, and we won't until next year. The view that aspartame isn't safe is a fringe view (this year's standards, not what might be next year's), so it shouldn't be given undue prominence. When and if that changes, we're including it in the article. I won't have problems accepting that a small group of people are sensitive to aspartame once it is proven. Right now it isn't. As I'm growing tired of this circular discussion, this thread is "closed". If you feel you have something else to say, please say it on the aspartame talk, your own talk page or elsewhere - not here. --Six words (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Food Standards Agency study Your idea of "undue prominence" (IOW even mentioning many of the issues) is quite different to mine. I'm an inclusionist. I don't like spinning articles the way you do. I want to present all reasonably well sourced data and allowing people to read and decide. You want to pre-digest data and present only the majority view as far as is possible, suppressing dissenting voices and cautionary studies by (incorrectly citing DUE and FRINGE). I can only speculate as to why you would want to do this. TickleMeister (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to speculate all you like. Since you mention you don't like spinning articles the way "I" do, can I take that as an admission of you liking to spin articles? No, seriously, this conversation is not leading us anywhere, so since this is my talk page, kindly go speculate somewhere else. This thread is closed. --Six words (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

enabling personal attacks.
Hi, Please refrain from uncollapsing personal attacks, thanks. Unomi (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're talking about, diff please. Never mind, I must have edited an old version of the discussion. --Six words (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Unomi (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for this edit. If you've got time, you might consider helping out with the worst of the backlog in Category:NPOV disputes from December 2007, where more than one thousand articles have been listed for more than two years now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I'll try and have a look at a few of those old disputes, thanks for making me aware of them. --Six words (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

James Randi
I appreciate you giving your thoughts on the matter. A polite admonishment on the page where the incivility took place is not at all inappropriate, since it sends the message to the targeted editor that others have noticed the transgression, and are addressing it. In this way, the editor targeted with such insults does not have to feel alone, or therefore, may be less likely to react with the same. So long as the admonishment is polite and friendly, this should not be a problem, and indeed, I was careful to do this. I did not "tell off" Steven. I did, however, admonish him, in part because this is the second time he has insulted someone with whom he disagreed with. While frustration is understandable, the comments with which Steven expressed it was not, and thus, I think my statement to him was the proper one, given that this is not the first time he's done this. If he cannot help but fly off the handle every time he encounters a policy violator or someone he disagrees with, then the problem is not the admonishment, or the people he's disagreeing with, the problem is him. Beyond this, we'll just have to agree to disagree. But thanks for your message. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

AN/I notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. About User:BeatriceX --Kleopatra (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/AshKmorse
You're welcome to comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Six Words"
I noticed your commenting on conciseness at the homeopathy article, and I liked your nick, "six words". A few weeks ago, I was advising a company on shortening their long winded advertisements, and I recommended that they limit any header to only have at most "six words", and that was before I ever saw your nick. I was wondering if "six words" is a nick having to do with not using too many words when it is avoidable, or is that just a coincidence?HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Pure coincidence, it's a hommage to Weird Al. --Six words (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, ha. This is one word.

Faith
Sorry about accusing you of bad faith. You should consider an accusation of "nit picking" as a compliment. Nit picking was needed to show cold fusion was not happening. I come from Stanford, which has a particle accelerator that shoots an electron into another electron, both travelling at relatively near the speed of light It can only function by the most extreme nit picking. Your nit picking (compliment) has resulted in substantial improvements to the article. Thank you for actually reading my extensive talk page remarks, and responding to them in a meaningful way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HkFnsNGA (talk • contribs)


 * No hard feelings, how boring would it be if everyone always agreed? --Six words (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Boring if everyone agreed?... I'm sure everyone would agree with that. I'm not sure we really disagree on much (without nitpicking). (Incidentally, I put homeopathy talk page material at WP:BJAODN's most recent page here.) HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Talk:Homeopathy
He made similar comments in his first post on the page. Brunton (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didn't see that comment at all. I have now removed the worst personal attacks. --Six words (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thought you might want to see this.
You have been mentioned here, thought you should know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Again.2C_at_aspartame_controversy Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, just wow. Apparently there are some people you cannot disagree with unless you're part of some conspiracy. That kind of baseless accusation is the reason I sometimes wonder if I really want to spend my time here at all. :( Unfortunately, what looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me will only reassure Killdec that we're indeed all out to get them. --Six words (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice...Aspartame
A complaint has been filed at AN/I located here. Since only two editors were notified, I'm placing a notice on the pages of all editors who have commented at Talk:Aspartame controversy in recent history. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is at ANI again? Thanks for notifying me, I'll leave a comment there. --Six words (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

OK ?
Do you mind if I blank the section at alt med and start over, since I worded it so poorly? PPdd (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, go ahead and delete it, but in the future please try not to alter your comments (and also the section title) once someone has answered (except for grammar/spelling) - see WP:TPG, more specifically WP:REDACT. It's really annoying to have to read comments several times because new stuff is added. If you're not sure your comment is completed, you can use the preview function. When someone doesn't understand what you are asking you can always add a reply to the answer you received, explaining that, without changing your first comment. --Six words (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Historical article in question per TCM page
You mentioned not having access to the article in question, and so i thought I woudl post it here; hope you dont mind. Calus (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll try and have a look at it, but next time please don't post non-free content on-wiki (see WP:CV for reasons) - you can send E-mails instead. I'll try to keep an eye on the article, but know very little about TCM so I probably won't be able to comment much on content. --Six words (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Calus, if you wanted the article I could have given it to you. Just ask. I got my copy by algorithmically using google search with alternative selections frompast rsults, cutting and pasting the new results, and repeating until I constructed it. I am surprised no one markets such software, as any article online can be pretty much fleshed out this way, even when the pages don't show except for one line at a time. PPdd (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not understand your edit at acupuncture
I did not understand your edit at acupuncture talk. Are you familiar with the history of the images on these pages and the mass SPA SP/MEAT attack (so far resulting in 5 blocked accounts) claiming the image of the woman must go beause her new age dress did not meet their cultural standards since they found her "alluring" and she should be "wearing a lab coat" and WP was giving acupuncture a bad name? I was a political cartoonist for 3 years and speak better with images, than speak with words (you likely already figured out the past clause long ago). The image of the woman professionally giving moxy, was replaced by an image of a male without gloves giving unprotected acupuncture. My question was legitimate, and the concept I intended to express clear from the images to those familiar with the history of the images. More clear than I can make it with words. I did not understand your edti and your edit summary. PPdd (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge I haven't edited acupuncture or its talk lately. What I did do was deleting the pointy new section you added to the TCM talk - I'm really disappointed you'd think this is a good idea when things are already very tense there. Perhaps I should have mentioned WP:SARCASM in my edit summary. --Six words (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I don't intend to get sucked into this Sockpuppet/Meatpuppet discussion any deeper, but let me tell you that just because people disagree with you, they don't have to be either. The sockpuppet investigation page says two editors were blocked because they did the same edit and at least one IP was, too, that would make three and they're not confirmed sockpuppets but were blocked on circumstancial evidence. Or is there another sockpuppet case? Please stop calling people sockpuppets or meatpuppets, you've initiated an investigation and that should be enough. Asking for a picture is legitimate, but the way you did wasn't. If you ask about my opinion on the photo question, here it is: The photo with the female acupuncturist is of poor quality and in the small version that was shown at the TCM article really looked more like “erotic art” than like a medical intervention. She also didn't use gloves so why is it unacceptable that the male acupuncturist doesn't wear gloves? Also please remember that you added a third picture, captioned “hypocrisy” - did you really think that's appropriate?--Six words (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant TCM. The sock master admitted to it being an attack on WP orchestrated from his facebook page. He is a prof of alt med.
 * Re pics - My edits were more about all of us. We all looked at the picture of the man in a dress suit and thought it looked appropriate. No one, including me, noticed that it is exactly what is said to be an "unsafe practice", especially with all the bleeding that goes on in acupuncture. Many looked at the woman as a sex object. Edit summaries were "we need a picture of a woman who is not alluring", or "wearing a lab coat", or some such. If you read the supersection context at acupuncture, it has nothing to do with editors. It has to do with the fact that the alt med is so unregulated that they can get away with such practices.
 * Why do so many think the pic looks like "erotic art". If the woman was 70 years old, or 300 pounds, or a man in a tank top, all dressed new age style, no on e would object. It does not seem right to choose pictures, not for looking exactly the way TCM looks in Northern California, but based on dress styles and mores of male dominated culture. That is not the way encyclipedias should work. PPdd (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think the hypocricy pic cut deep re "showing skin", you should definitely avoid being the subject of one of my political cartoons. It well summed up my style, to let people think and get a conclusion on their own by tying things together without words telling them how. Things stick better that way. PPdd (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the picture was different, I might look at it in a different way, but it is what it is (and I can't help pointing out that it might still look erotic to some people if the woman was old, obese, or it was a man in a tank top* / (no need to “fix” the links so the pictures show here - I know how to insert images and chose to link to them instead); I guess there are even some who admire the new age style). The “hypocrisy” picture was out of place at the talk page. --Six words (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC) *FYI: I'm a woman, so I'd actually find it more erotic if it was a woman being treated by a man in a tank top, but that doesn't mean it's not looking like erotic art.
 * I'm still mystified as to the objection to the pic. Go to any new age non-Chinese TCM moxy clinic north of San Fran and they all look the same, frilly "new age version of conservative" blouse, shoulders, and all. Even the men sometimes wear these loose hippy-Rennaisance shirt-blouses that expose the neck or chest, and maybe even part of the shoulder when leaning over. In the South Pacific where it's broiling hot, practitioners wear tank tops. The acupuncture pic with the "conservative suit" is outright obscene. Especially with the hypocrisy of claiming "safety" found in the reviews, while at the same time not mandating safety via latex gloves, which even the receptionist wears if they come in contact with anyone if they work for an MD. PPdd (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

/* Alec Baldwin */
Hi, good morning from the UK. I appreciate you weighing in there, sometimes its like the lunatics are in charge of the asylum here. Have a nice day, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good afternoon from only about a thousand kilometres away, I sometimes get that feeling, too. --Six words (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I understand you. Are you saying that "being on the brink of suicide" is not important enough to be included in an article about a person? Nevadaone (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that biographies of living persons have to be sourced and worded very carefully - what you added to the article wasn't. Daily Mail and the like aren't reliable sources, and if his depression is only mentioned so this “angry voicemail” quote be in the article, that's not acceptable. If you ask my personal opinion, it's due to those rags that he was “on the brink of suicide” in the first place, but that of course is original research and strictly forbidden in articles. --Six words (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently your position now is that it is a sourcing problem. You write "sourced and worded very carefully" and "you added to the article wasn't" wasn't so.
 * I have to say I find your arguments rather absurd. Firstly, the material you deleted was sourced not only from the Daily Mail, but also from People Magazine and ABC News. During my many years on Wiki, this is the first time I have seen anyone claim that ABC News does not qualify to be RS.
 * Secondly, for heaven's sake, the material you deleted also had Alec Baldwin's "A Promise To Ourselves" as a source!!! I mean, if Alec Baldwin isn't a RS for how he was feeling, who exactly is??? Nevadaone (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you worded the paragraph in a way that makes it look like you only included the material about him feeling suicidal as a ‘wrapper’ to quote the message to his daughter. Why do you think that needs to be quoted? Why verbatim? If it is needed (I don't think it is), then you can just say that when his daughter didn't answer a pre-arranged call, he left an angry voicemail message that found its way to the internet. --Six words (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, it seems that you have dropped your objections about sources. Let's move on. If you feel that the entire voicemail is too long, I have no objection to it being shortened. But the reader deserves to know why a man would want to commit suicide if a voicemail was made public. Otherwise it would seem rather mysterious to the reader. So some information about the voicemail should be included. Nevadaone (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I still object to some of the sources, but the wording is a more serious problem. Anyway, we're not going to build consensus on my talk, so please discuss this on the article talk page.--Six words (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Notice
Thank you for posting that notice on my page, I will add my 2 cents when I have time. Enough is enough, and hopefully some sane individual will agree that a topic ban is in order. Calus (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it's mandatory to notify anyone who is mentioned in an ANI request (though I would have done it anyway). You can add a comment, but you don't have to, it's really more of a notification in case things become too messy on the article talk or in mainspace. PPdd's account is quite old and with a lot of edits, so I guess most admins without knowledge of the back story would assume that the low edit-count single-purpose accounts like Herbxue and you are the problematic editors in this conflict (understandably, because those accounts very often are problematic), but anyone spending some time to look into the situation can see that's not the case. I hope Ludwigs2 will come back today (or this week) to improve the article, but I'd understand if he'd lost interest. Let's just keep our fingers crossed and see what happens in the next week or so. --Six words (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Note
Hi. It might have been best if you discussed with me and got history before escalating to a notice board. If you were familiar with the history and threats of Ludwigs2, you might not have posted there, and advised Ludwigs2 as to how to de-escalate rather than make threats and escalate as he threatened to do to disrupt editing. Ludwigs2 declared a couple of months ago that TCM medicines should not be on that page because it would be like listing pharmacy prescriptions in a medicine article. Ludwigs2 knew nothing about TCM except that he was an advocate and did not like skeptics, which he said again and again. In fact, most of TCM is a random list of medicines with no organizational system because it is based on superstition and not reality. Most of TCM is practiced at home. Of the remainder that practiced by doctors, 75% is medicines, the rest things like acupuncture, massage, Chinese alchemy and astrology. The list not only elucidates what TCM is, it is not based on obscure medicines, but medicines listed and discussed in major TCM and alt med journals, and which are illustrative of the concepts of symptoms in the section immediately preceding the medicines list. The classification system is typical of before Linnaeus, human, animal, mineral, vegetable. I believe Ludwigs2 is the one who objected to listing TCM/Acupuncture in the alt med article or pseudoscience article on the basis that "none of its practitioners claimed TCM to be science", therefore it is not pseudoscience. I recently found the article you refer to where one of the venerated practitioners says the opposite, but instead of using it in the article Luwigs2 objected to, I posted at talk for his response, which was not given at all, but you were puzzled as to why I posted there. Ludwigs2 constantly rails against science, skeptics, and editors, calling them names. For example he is constantly calling me names and accusing me of bad faith, recently stating that I have a "fascination with the penis", stimulating my ex to edit again yesterday. He advised a financial COI TCM related practitioner as to how to essentially censor info they did not like that they thought hurt their image several weeks back. Two days ago, he threatened to remove science, anatomy, physiology, criticism, etc. from the article lead and remove things from the list and images that he did not like, not based on RS, but pure POV. He implied that he intended not to discuss at talk, but instead to edit war. He went so far as to say if he started one, I would lose, implying that he had friends at WP who would act as surrogates for him. He is acting as surrogate for User:Calus, who apparently is surrogate for User:BrendanMatson and Herbxue. Ludwigs2 is constantly very insulting and derisive, for example just yesterday saying I have a "fascination with the penis". In fact, a Chinese person would not notice anything unusual about the article, and Ludwigs2 was commenting on his own fascination. The metaphor section explains why there is such "fascination" in TCM. Also fascination with toxics, animals and their perceived strengths, leading to a practice that is a mere list with what appear to be exotica to Europeans, as pointed out in The Monkey and the Inkwell and other academic books. There is also an aspect of deliberate bizarreness so as to appear occult and esoteric, just like the history of other any medicines and their quackeries. The difference is veneration for tradition and ancestors, whereby quackery is not gotten rid of, but enshrined. Ludwigs2 advised a COI practitioner how to work the WP system to get information deleted from an alt med article so as not to provide information to readers they did not like. He is now carrying that out. He implicitly threatened to bring in editors he knew to create a false consensus without knowledge of TCM but a view as to how it should look, before doing research to achieve that look. Ludwigs2 actually said he was deleting info then going to try to find RS to justify his predetermined view of how TCM should look at WP. He threatened to bring in editors to cause bureaucratic headaches to disrupt editing, which he has done. I believe well intentioned editors are being manipulated in ignorance of his history, and what he calls "politics". He is essentially acting as surrogate for BrendanMatson and his socks/meats. One of them, Calus, "explained" why the 12 of them suddenly appeared to censor the image of TCM in the article. Herbxue (financial COI) had "explained" that they were reacting to a discussion forum. When asked to provide a link for it, Herbxue refused, but Calus just recently responded with this. I had been giving them the benefit of the doubt, over and over, despite their admitted COI and SPA assertions that their intent was to censor to achieve POV, but note that the date of the "discussion forum" is after they came on, so it is all a deliberate lie, one of the few things I have difficulty tolerating, unless admitted to. As you know, I am a fairly new editor, though my edit counts are high, there are many tiny edits on only a handful of articles. How do you propose dealing with this without leaving COI editors in charge of content via POV surrogates like Ludwigs2 and his political manipulations to achieve POV via unwitting and uninformed surrogates? I asked Ocaasi for advice after Ludwigs2 made his threats yesterday, after which I walked away, as he added insults to me as well as starting edit warring. What should be done with the COIs, who are deliberately lying about their sock/meat status with phony discussion forums to explain what they are doing at WP? I believe that reacting to your notice will only create hostility and a bad editing environment, so will not do so, and defer to your experience as to how best to de-escalate this and stop the deliberate removal of content from the article to achieve a public image for financial COI. I would just walk away, as I did at acupuncture when WLU suggested it, but I do not think allowing the COI/SPA/Sock-meat removal of content to go through based on a lie about a discussion forum re sock-meat. Also, given the attempts to deliberately CFORK to create a COI "presentation", I also do not think it is appropriate to just sit and watch. On another matter, I did research and found RS for ALL material I ever deleted from TCM over the past months, no matter what POV the material supported. I just did not always do so in a matter of hours, as the COI/SPA complained I should have, when he had BURDEN. PPdd (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to discuss this on my talk page. --Six words (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Why was I blocked? Will this show up as a permanent stain on my history?
PPdd did not ask me to edit. Just the opposite, I came in to this to join Ludwigs2 in poking fun at PPdd because Ludwigs2 tried to insult PPdd by saying that PPdd had a “fascination with the penis”. When I saw what was happening, which seemed like blatant whitewash, censorship, and cultural narrow-mindedness, instead of poking fun at PPdd, I chimed in seriously, from an anon, then I created an account. I logged off because I was using someone else’s computer. I may have forgotten to log on. I asked for opinions of others, but not for others to express them at WP, but I may have been lax in my words and they may have expressed opinions at WP, as an unintended result, or they might have all been mine. I am not checking since I take responsibility for them in any case, but there was certainly no intention to meat by anyone. I am editing from PPdd’s laptop right now, since I forgot mine, and am so disclosing so as not to create still another problem, but I thought it was best to quickly dispel this now and not wait until I got home. I will be careful to log on in the future, which might not be for a while, and be more careful that if I ambiguously ask for opinion about whether or not there is censorship or bias, that I make it clear that I am not asking for edits, but only for opinions to be given privately to me. There is another problem in that WP:MEAT seems to be unstable in content, and it is different than what I remember, but I will err on the side of caution in the future. DanieliM (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not blocked, otherwise your block log wouldn't be clear. --Six words (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Cryptic message re: Atheism
Cc Adi 8.38: ‘Chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala, he immediately becomes a great devotee. Cc Adi 8.40: Vrindavana-dasa-pade koti namaskara aiche grantha kari’ tenho tarila samsara I offer millions of obeisances unto the lotus feet of Vrindavana dasa Thakura. No one else could write such a wonderful book for the deliverance of all fallen souls. Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Antya 3.255 e-vanyāya ye nā bhāse, sei jīva chāra koṭi-kalpe kabhu tāra nāhika nistāra SYNONYMS e-vanyāya — in this inundation; ye — anyone who; nā bhāse — does not float; sei — that; jīva — living entity; chāra — most condemned; koṭi-kalpe — in millions of kalpas; kabhu — at any time; tāra — his; nāhika — there is not; nistāra — deliverance. TRANSLATION "Anyone who does not float in this inundation is most condemned. Such a person cannot be delivered for millions of kalpas. PURPORT The kalpa is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (8.17): sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ. One day of Brahmā is called a kalpa. A yuga, or mahā-yuga, consists of 4,320,000 years, and one thousand such mahā-yugas constitute one kalpa. The author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta says that if one does not take advantage of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he cannot be delivered for millions of such kalpas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.117.210 (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't the place to publish or advertise your book. I'm not sure I understand what you wrote, something like that: reading what you added to the atheism article will convert atheists? That's not what the article is for.--Six words (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Reconsidering

 * (1) Your nonAGF wording was over-strong and somewhat uncivil, so I reacted to the wording, not the content. On reconsidering afte a night's sleep, the content was accurate, not as WP:bad faith, but as self deception bad faith (like a hypochondriac might have). I have reworded per the content of your comments. Is there other rewording that might be in order?
 * (2) Ludwigs2's future addition of content will likely have value. The only way he is going to contribute is by removing all bodily fluids, excreta, or anything relating to sex in any way, from TCM, to replace the lead with "NCCAM only" content, and to attack other editors and use uncivil language, before meaningfully contributing with RS. Your suggestion that he be allowed time for this is a good one, and I will try to support that.
 * (3) I commented on what I thought of the "L. Ron Hubbard editing style" here. PPdd (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (1) Saying that I'm deceiving myself is a nice unpology. Why are you unable to see that while you started by improving the article (via removing unreferenced or unadequately referenced content) you ended up introducing a POV? To achieve NPOV, it's usually best to read reliable sources and try to summarise them, NOT try to remember what you once heard or read and then google for sources saying that. Why? The way our brain works we remember the wackiest stuff best, so writing from one's recollection isn't very likely to result in a neutral representation of the subject (unless the subject is one's bread and butter - a historian specialised in post-revolution China will probably be able to write a history of TCM section easily, but it's highly likely that they'll also remember their sources).
 * (2) That's illogical: you think he'll attack other editors and use uncivil language, so the suggestion to let him edit for a while is good? About the sources and Ludwigs2's “NCCAM only approach” - I don't see anything wrong with following NCCAM's style there, in my eyes their explanations of AltMed modalities are pretty accurate and comprehensible.
 * (3) I try to keep away from everything related to Scientology so I'm not familiar with that case, and I don't really think it's important here. When TCM practitioners and sceptics both tell you that the article seems biased against TCM, it probably is. Keep in mind that you're not immune from all the self deception and subconscious bias you're able to see in others' reasoning - you're a person, too. --Six words (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (1a) The self-deception comment referred to me, not you. Bad faith as used off-wiki is very similar to POV, as one does not see it when they have it.
 * (1b) It’s sort of bread and butter for me. I work as a field botanist and doing US real estate and operations research as chief American scientist for a huge Chinese conglomerate in Gansu, which makes pharmaceuticals from TCM stuff. But I only work as a volunteer for anything I ever do, so I declined pay as usual. I met the president of the company while doing volunteer work reading advanced science journals to intellectually high end elderly people in their 90's with macular degeneration blindness, who get thrown away into assisted living because their bodies go before their minds. (It only looks like altruism, try it, and you will understand that you will get much more than give doing this.) The brother of the president was a math undergrad turned architect, whose father-in-law coaches the math olympiad for a major Chinese university, and I, too, work with young mathematicians, so we hit it off and became partners, whereby I own 20% of a Chinese import/export company based in Shanghai.
 * (1c) His mother-in-law has ovarian cancer and they refuse treatment with surgery or chemo, instead using only purist TCM, and he says "she is getting a little better". The words I put at talk were from him, and I modified it as such. So he was one source for content suggestions about the medicines I looked up RS for. Another was one of my best friends, a celebrity MD and TCM advocate. A third, when I was accused of POV, was to go to TCM advert sites and see what they said, and then try to find RS to back it up.
 * (1e) I wrote an essay WP:Article creep to describe my experience where researching in one area while an article in construction, leads to POV, and that this will all work out under WP:Eventualism. So I stopped looking at POV altogether, and just added RS content, first finding RS for anything I deleted, then for what my two TCM friends said. At the point of reading about Lu Xun's Medicine about TCM, the article creep swung toward the cannibalism stuff, and I recalled reading about this in what I viewed at the time of reading sections as a botany history and metaphysics book, The Monkey and the Teapot, hence the search term in the link I provided; I am from Stanford doing phil of math/sci and data analysis, and I peripherally knew the reviewer on that book's back cover.
 * (2) Ludwigs2 deleted RS and MEDRS content on the basis of declaring it "disgusting", and deleted all "alternative anatomy" and physiology (with MEDRS Journal of Biocommunications), metaphysics of the self-propelled by qi force blood (The cornerstone of TCM), metaphysics of the basis of symptoms and diagnosis (5 Phases astrology and alchemy, the cornerstone of TCM symptoms, diagnoses, and cures, and of pao medicine preparations), etc. He deleted all early and recent Chinese description and criticism of TCM, like Lu Xun. He deleted any image he personally felt to be disgusting, but which are the centerpiece displays in TCM stores, because of their high cost (and thus not high usage), like deer penis. I could go on, but he is not even done deleting according to his own taboos yet. A Chinese person looking at the pre-deletion article would not even blink. NCCAM is RS, but it is a political body that does not want to rock the TCM-believer/voter boat, so is certainly not the only thing that should be in the lead.
 * (3) Again, my bad faith self deception comment referred to me, not you. However, I stopped thinking about POV during construction, only about adding RS content. More content would balance any POV later. Deleting RS is not the way to achieve NPOV. Adding what one thinks is lacking is. And personal cultural taboos like what one thinks is "disgusting", is never a good basis to delete RS and MEDRS content. It’s like a Chinese person deleting the cheese article content because they think it is disgusting. PPdd (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't think Ludwigs2 is deleting anything just because it's “disgusting” - I don't have to tell you that some of our “scientific medicines” (and foods) are made from things that are see as disgusting by many, too - just think of heparin (animal intestines), premarin (urine of pregnant horses), insulin (some people still use porcine insulin), gelatine (hide and bones), rennet (calfs' stomachs), citric acid (‘mold’) - the preparation may be different, but the “yuck-factor” is the same; I think it's a question of weight. The article's focus should be on the practice as a whole (history, education, current practice, diciplines, ...). While there certainly needs to be a section on the medicines TCM practitioners use (or Chinese/Japanese/Korean/? self-medicate on), we shouldn't bloat the article by trying to mention every single medicine that can be (or has historically been) used by TCM. Let's have section on medications that says that they can be of plant, mineral and animal origin - humans are animals, too (even though some of our species don't want to admit that), and then list a few often used examples. The article's main focus should be on the practice as such, not on the substances used (similar to our articles on scientific medicine subjects - in an article about dentistry we can certainly say that they also give or prescribe pharmaceuticals, yet we don't need to list every single medication, but instead focus on how they're educated, what techniques they use, ...). Our policies gear into each other, so you can't just focus on one (verifiability) and hope if you use a broad enough spectrum of sources the article will somehow turn out be in accordance with the other content policies and guidelines (neutral point of view, notability, consensus, ...). What we should aim at is producing a good article, and each edit on this way should be “good” in regard to those criteria. --Six words (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * He said "disgusting" was why on another page. I actually made the same point in response as you did, but my examples of evidence based medicine were even more extreme. Observing him interact with others, he might be a little hot-headed, and lose perspective. I know I do. By the way, thanks for wasting time on me once again. That said, now for the name calling - "You exclusionist!". :) PPdd (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's always difficult to judge on a person's reasoning via “Chinese whispers” (no pun intended) as one doesn't know the context. I know I wouldn't find it funny if I were able to read Chinese, Hindi, or another Asian language and found that on their wikipedia 60% of the article about “western medicine” was a list of medicines, a large portion of them made from such “disgusting” raw materials even though I know that most of them aren't prescribed very often or are produced synthetically nowadays. I'd probably find it disgusting if reading the article gave you the idea that lots of western medicine is made from slaughterhouse waste (or if the en.wikipedia article gave you that idea), and I'd definitely try to change that citing WP:WEIGHT or the other language wiki's equivalent. --Six words (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of the nature of TCM is the listlike structure of 75% (per deleted RS) of it. But as to "Chinese whispers", it turns out that "breath" is a "substance" (herb) used in TCM medicines! Souls of hanged criminals, too, a famous example in metaphysics. And having just finished filling User talk:Ocaasi's page with an anecdotal reply related to "Chinese Whispers", I might as well finish that anecdote here. Crick (DNA guy) referred me to Christoph Koch about something I was working on related to the Technological singularity, related to "Chinese whispers". Koch was giving a talk at a multi-media event where I had choregraphed and semi-composed a drumming and Capoeira dance for the next event there. Koch had this "complexity as consciousness" razzle-dazzle using all of the functions you ever saw as an undergrad in math. I asked about John Searle's Chinese Room as a counterexample to what he had just said. Searle's Chinese Room is a reply to Alan Turing's Turing test. Turing's test is that you input "Chinese" into the black box room, and if it "whispers" (actually, no one said "whisper") back and you can't tell if there is a Chinese human or computer, the computer "understands" Chinese. Searle didn't understand Chinese, but could read a computer program. So Searle said that if you gave him enough time, he could take the input, follow the computer program like a recipe's instructions, and whisper back Chinese, and then would "understand Chinese" per Turing. But he does not understand Chinese! My examkple was a little more subtle and complex. Koch then just waved his had and called me a "philosopher" in front of everyone, and went on. I applied the Turing test to the Singularity, related to a Daniel Dennett questions, "Can a computer feel pain?" My Singularity modification is, "Can a Singularity computer be programmed to derive sadistic pleasure from torturing Homo sapiens and keep them alive forever?" I even have a Singularity answer, "It doesn't matter. One can approximate such a program, which is plenty bad enough." I assume that is not what you meant by "Chinese whispers". I didn't get your pun, so had to think of something. Incidentally, something for the TCM article. My Gansu/Shanghai partner said that in western Chinese culture, when someone's family member is sick, it is impolite, not polite, to ask, "How is your mother-in-law doing?". It is kind of peripheral to TCM, but best fits in a Chinese medicine article. Cheers. :) PPdd (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS, as to weight, you have a good point. A counter point is that the substances I included are commonly discussed, and some uncoomonly used substances are only so because of their rarity (deer penis), or communist dictate, appearance (eew, that's disgusting), or good ethics of people like Herbxue (ecologically conscious - tiger penis), but are ignored by many who don't share concerns for ecology, etc. (big black martket of TCM, just as there was in the west when abortion was illegal.) PPdd (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Message for you at TCM talk
I left a message for you at TCM talk. However, I have a related issue best discussed here. After you read that message, I have concerns about writing it because it insults two editors, although worded as lightly as I could because it is an important point. I stayed quiet about lots of things as others insulted the expertise of me and others. I might not have mentioned all those advising me as to what should at least be included, whereby I looked for RS. I don't want to "out" people who are not even "in" as editors. I could have just asked them to edit at WP, but then it would be meat. I am editing at alt med articles not out of interest in alt med, but to quickly learn the ropes here at WP. Part of that learing is to learn to respect and not insult other editors. One thing I like about you is that you are critical of my edits, explain why, and othersise you just say a brief "OK" and things move on. Do you have any advice on how to deal with such "expert" editors, whose advise is taken by other editors, not based solely on RS or their editing history, but on their coming in new and claiming "expertise" as a basis for deleting things from the article while it was in construction. Another example is an editor there who claims not to be POV because they were a "student of allopathic medicine", like you ever heard a med student describe themselves that way. Another claims to live in Shanghai as a "doctor", not to practice TCM, and is to the extreme right (or left) of Calus and Herb as per alt med. PPdd (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I take it when you were talking about trying not to out people what you wanted to say was that you'll never, ever do that to anyone, neither friend nor foe (because that's a foolproof way to get yourself blocked). I see you already know about the Essjay controversy, so there's no probably need to mention that experienced Wikipedians won't care much about who somebody claims to be. That said, I first heard that Herbxue (you should really stop using his abandoned username elsewhere) was a TCM teacher from you, so I don't have the feeling that Essjay's case is important here. A lot of editors are almost allergic to appeals to authority anyway, so attempts to edit against consensus based on claims of authority will certainly fail. The part about your own expertise and that of your advisors is a little tricky. While recruiting them to edit the article will be seen as meatpuppetry on your side, editing based on what they think is important makes it look like your their meatpuppet, neither of which is going to go down well with others. Ideally, the decision for either disclosure of expertise or anonymity should be made before you start editing an article, or at the latest when problems arise - IOW: it's too late for that now (and as I said before, people won't accept it as a reason to edit against consensus anyway). There are certainly some things I think you should (or shouldn't) do, but most of that is my personal opinion, other editors may tell you the opposite. Off the top of my head, some advice for you:
 * stay focused and concise: when discussing on talk pages, don't get sidetracked on marginally related things and don't use anecdotes to illustrate or prove your point.
 * once others have replied to something you said on a talk page, try not to change your comments (except for grammar and spelling). If you feel you're being misunderstood, make a new comment. If you realize you were wrong, you can either STRIKE the comment and leave a short note explaining you realized being wrong or you can say that in an additional comment. Don't just delete or change the wrong comment as that will leave other's comments without context.
 * use the “Show preview” button.
 * don't use jokes or sarcasm, it'll be misunderstood.
 * leave the archiving to bots. If the talk page is very active, you can set down the age value (but make sure it's at least seven days - some editors only find time to edit on weekends). Resist marking older discussions as resolved, as that'll reset the clock.
 * when someone questions something you wrote, don't refer them to something you wrote or contributed to a lot - they don't question whether you think you're right but for independent confirmation; of course an article or essay you wrote will confirm your position.
 * keep in mind we're all voluteers.
 * keep in mind we're writing an encyclopedia, not a textbook or a scientific paper. While scholarly texts can give a lot of information on certain aspects of a subject, we have to make sure that we provide a balanced, comprehensible overview, and secondary sources like the NCCAM website can help us do that.
 * work towards consensus and be open to compromise. This is so important, it cannot be stressed enough  C O N S E N S U S!   Don't edit against consensus, it'll only lead to avoidable wikistress.
 * As I said, most of it is just my personal opinion, and if I were to think about it for a longer time, there'd probably be more, but it's a start. --Six words (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC) P.S.: About the “allopathic student” - I definitely heard that before and think in some countries where what we consider “AltMed” is a respected branch of medicine, e.g. in India (where it's pretty normal to consult a homeopath first), saying you're an allopath (or studying to become one) would sound pretty normal.


 * Well, thanks for a very thorough and thoughtful reply. I will try to keep in mind all of it. I say "thoughtful" because all of it seems repsonsinve to particular things I have done that need improvement. Re "outing", I am the one who helped Herb do a name change and bury any reference to his past use. He keeps bringing up his expertise and blowing his own cover. Likely he is an expert at what he does, which is also likely not pure TCM, but a modified version more akin to Chinese Integral Medicine.
 * Incidentally, Ludwigs2 thinks (or thought) I am a "radical skeptic". That may be so, but I am so radical I may have come out the other side. My unspoken "expertise" comes from being educated by some of the exact same people as Carla Nappi, who wrote the main TCM analysis from one of many western perspectives - The Monkey of the Inkpot is written from the perspective of trying to be an application of Ian Hacking's Historical Epistemology and Historical Ontology. As she put it in her Princeton doctoral thesis (in history and phil of sci and phil of medicine, aboutut TCM), "What kind of violence might be done to a system of knowledge when met and deconstructed by another? Is it possible to understand an epistemological world vastly removed from one’s own either in time or space? This question, which lies at the heart of any attempt to understand local epistemologies… (footnote: By “local epistemology” I mean a way of understanding the study of knowledge-making that acknowledges that there are different forms of epistemology, i.e., equally justifiable systems of knowledge that operate on different principles or in different contexts… See Ian Hacking “Historical Epistemology”… and in “styles of reasoning” – “Historical Ontology”… These and related approaches acknowledge a phenomenon that I also explore here: there are a plurality of justifiable systems of gathering knowledge about the world. /footnote)". I pulled that quote out of her doctoral thesis for L2. If you like history and phil of science/medicine/epistemoloy/ontology, this TCM book would be right up your alley. Monkey of the Inkpot is fairly new, (there just came out this month a brief on it in Harvard Magazine) but I predict that within 2 years, it will be used as a basic text in phil of sci classes, since it is so full of concrete examples (using TCM) of abstract concepts, a sure fire way to get your book read by undergrads in history, phil, and med departments. Thanks Again. PPdd (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Hi - I'm comparatively new to wikipedia so what I'm asking probably sounds pretty stupid - but may I remove that tag on my userpage now? Or is it going to be removed automatically? I can't find any result of that investigation clearing me from being a sockpuppet of this brendan matthews yet. --Mallexikon (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can remove that tag - it won't be removed automatically. The case is archived, it can be found here. tbh, I have no idea why this tag was even placed at your user page - CheckUser showed Herbuxe and his former username were the same person (no surprise there) and everyone else was unlikely to be the same person before they tagged your page. You could ask the editor who placed it there for an explanation, but I think it was just a mistake and they won't even remember that they tagged you, let alone why they did it. btw: the TCM article is looking better and better! When I have more time (perhaps this weekend) I'll read it thoroughly and give some feedback as a general reader. --Six words (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Some feedback would be very welcomed indeed. Since PPdd left the the article I don't get a lot of input anymore. I sometimes don't even get an answer when I put up questions at the TCM talk page. Mallexikon (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)