User talk:JJL/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, JJL/Archive 1, lol and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial jpl
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- ElBenevolente^(talk) 07:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Erwin Ballarta

I'm looking for people who might be interested in helping to improve the Erwin Ballarta article. I see that you have done a good deal of work on the Remy Presas and and Remy P. Presas articles, so you may be interested in this article. Even if you don't want to pitch in, you may find the article interesting to read. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 03:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of him, but I do know some Pekiti Tirsia folks and a number of Dekiti Tirsia Siradas folks. Thanks for pointing it out! (Adding late attribution.) JJL

Chapin Sisters

I've removed the prod tag from this page on account of the fact that I think this group is notable enough for an article under WP:MUSIC; however, I agree with the other editors that this article does nothing to assert the notability of the group. Since you are the creator of the article, it would be great if you can add something that would make it clear that this group is notable enough to be covered here. Thanks. ScottW 02:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll get on it. I confess that as a Harry Chapin fan I just assumed the 'Chapin' name was enough! JJL 03:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Double degree

1. You've changed U.K. to U.S. English for no good reason; please see the Manual of Style on this.
2. You've changed good to bad English (e.g., one doesn't study a degree — one studies a subject; one earns a degree by study).
3. The 3-2 programme seems simply to be a double degree, so should be a section of this article, not separate. It's not cited or sourced, however. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I found the 3-2 progam article by accident and edited it. I didn't attempt to add citations or sources to what was already there. I agree that it makes sense to redirect it to double degree--it's too specific for its own entry. I thought of that but wasn't sure if there'd be a bulldog guarding it as there apparently is for double degree. I don't see where anything like "study a degree" occurs in what I wrote; "field of study" was already there. So, no good English was changed to bad English. JJL 04:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

On that last point, you're quite right — I misread the diff. Sorry. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries, mate. Merging in the 3-2 was a good idea and perhaps next time I will be less tentative about doing so. JJL 04:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Note on capitals

Hi. Thank you for your edits at various math articles. Concerning this addition to mathematics, I have a small remark. On Wikipedia capitals are discouraged, except at the beginning of sentence, or sometimes title. So "Fluid Dynamics" should be "Fluid dynamics" (small "d"). I fixed that. This is a small style note of a thing it is good to be aware of. :) You can reply here if you have comments. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I did know that, and it's why I put in my edit history line for that edit that "caps where used are fairly standard IMO". What I was trying to indicate was that I was intentionally using caps where I thought it was standard practice to do so, and avoiding them otherwise. In retrospect, I agree that it's not so standard as to trump WP style. JJL 04:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

PharmD

Dear JJL - I noted that you reinserted the footnote (e.g. I restored the DPharm footnote. About half of the students do the whole program in 5 years--18 year olds just out of H.S. JJL 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)).

I deleted the footnote again and would ask that it remain deleted. As a holder of the PharmD degree (as well as a BS in Pharmacy, a MS and in the next month a MBA - 11 years in total), the footnote is materially incorrect and misleading.

The degree is the degree (a professional doctorate in pharmacy inclusive of the title that goes along with it) - it is not "like" other degrees just as a DBA is not like an EdD or perhaps a PhD in physics is not like a PhD in history.

Not unlike medical or dental school, the professional curriculum that leads to the granting of the degree is four years in duration (e.g. the course work that leads to the degree in each of these professions starts in professional year 1, day 1, course 1 and ends on the last day of year 4). In the summers between professional years, pharmacy students serve as interns as one of the requirements to sit for State licensing examinations; thereby, generally making the program a year around effort.

In the case of pharmacy, all Universities offering the degree in the US need to be accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education and all students are required to have completed their prerequisite courses (generally 2 years in duration (calculus, chemistry, biology, physics, English, etc) but many applicants now have undergraduate or graduate degrees) before starting the professional program.

Pharmacy graduates also have the option to pursue post graduate residencies and fellowships.

I think that the ongoing debate within the editing group is missing the forest when trying to equate "time served" across degrees. Each degree is unique within its profession.

I cannot agree. Look at U. of S. Nevada, which is still pushing a 5-year program (60 undergrad. hours plus a 3 year D.Pharm.), thus graduating 23 year old "doctors" on a regular basis. Shenandoah U. claims a 6 year program, but I know many do it in 5 years, and that about half the students there are on a 5- or 6-year schedule [1]. The DPharm is still, in effect, a master's degree level program. However, I do think this is better deabted at the original article's Talk page. JJL 01:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Educational Specialist

I noticed that you reverted the Educational Specialist entry to an older one because it is "more accurate." I unfortunately fail to see your reasoning. Could you explain? Tim 04:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly! I'll take it to the Talk page there though. JJL 17:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

NPS notable alums and faculty collaborators

Naval Postgraduate Sschool digital librarian feedback:

JJL>>start a list of noted alumni at a new article; e.g., see the one for Harvard

Good suggestion, please provide template for posting contributions -- geoWIZard-Passports 21:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a specific template for it? I'd just edit the one for some other school. JJL 21:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit on double degree page

Sorry - If you don't indent your contribution by using ":", it can be unclear who's saying what in the discussion. Please see: Help:Talk_page#Formatting. Cheers Nicknz 00:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, and generally do so for clarity. This one I had placed it at the level I wanted it to be at. It was a question that I had thought about before (and that appeared in a 25 July 2005 comment by someone else), made timely by your comment, and I did want it at the first level. JJL 04:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Ashihara.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ashihara.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

MOTT

Thanks for catching that - must remember to drink my coffee first. If anything I should have put it in afd rather than speedy delete and I probably only did that because the way it was categorized.Peter Rehse 04:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I must confess that I haven't really figured out categories yet, so I accept my share of the blame! The question came up so often on web fora (esp. MartialTalk) that I thought an entry was merited. BTW, I like what you're doing with Jujutsu regarding external links and lengthy lists of styles. JJL 12:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for the backup on the Grandmaster Soke Sensei whatever on Jujutsu.Peter Rehse 02:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

On the INTRODUCTION - Good work!!! I just could not tell where you began & Dbruckner interjects!

• Please keep it up! We definitely need you!!
• I'm going to read you more carefully, & maybe comment!!! --Ludvikus 16:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments as I was getting discouraged by all the back-and-forth there and have been hanging back because of it. I fear that too many posters there can't see the forest for the trees, as it were. JJL 16:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, & I love that metaphor, 'can't see the forest for the trees"! But the problem is more than that. These two characters (i'll leave there names out), are absolutely INFANTILE , beside being so very obviously IGNORANT.

Notice now they have REVERTED even your submission!!! (I think they think its me).

But don't give in. We can seek the help of an Administrator down the road.

Best regards, Philosophical Wikipedian User:JJL!!! --Ludvikus 16:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I've just REVERTED to your version. Apparently, that Bbrucker (I can never get his/her name straight) reverted for the 3rd time - believing it was me - I think that's because you picked up on my expression, I mean my use of it of course, "Western Intellectual Tradition." By the way, its the title of ny favorite Single Volume work on the subject it covers - by Jacob Bronowski - do you know it??

Now I'm VERY CURIOUS what will happen when Dbrucker discover its YOU, and not ME!!! What will he/she do?? Otherwise, PLEASE, PLEASE, CONTINUE. I like your writing very much - I would even say that you express ME better than I do MYSELF in this matter of the Introduction. --Ludvikus 17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So far its sticking- your edit, that is. Why don't you collect together what you've written on the Talk/Discussion page and Past on the Article? Again, I think you've done an excellent job of it. And we can see what will happen, and take it from there, OK?? --Ludvikus 17:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

---

It's still sticking, and I've just realized that you've merely given us a cut-to-the-bone opening paragraph, but have kept all my cited work immediately below. So effectively, my work is there too, which does please me therefore. Nevertheless, I think you could still contribue by at least fine-tuning that opening paragraph. Why do we stick to just the three categories ther, and in that order? Perhaps we should include the names of all the basic courses a college student majoring in philosophy in the West (although, I'm quite sure, almost everywhere else these days) would be required to take? And why the ORDER of the three? I think KNOWLEDGE should be First, followed immediately by Being, or its (essentialy) cognate, Existence. Ludvikus 17:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I've just taken it upon myself to award you a Barnstar. It's placed on your User page, where it belongs I think, especially as it's so bare. Do you approve? Ludvikus 17:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

---

How nice of you! I appreciate your kind words and encouragement. I would very much like to see the Philosophy page continue to move forward. I think there is wide agreement over content but very little agreement over order/organization. While in some ways I would like to see East vs. West mentioned earlier in some ways, in so many other ways someone looking up the term in an English language encyclopedia likely wants Western Philosophy--the basis of Western Civilization. JJL 19:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

---

More good news. Db conceded. Your version sticks! Now let's continue! I think of the 3 words in the first paragraph of the Intro., Knowledge should come first, before Existence and Conduct. After all, did not the Ancients ask, What is it to Know, before What is it to Be? - or do the Right Thing?

Yours, etc., --Ludvikus 19:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge, Being, and Conduct

Moving forward, I suggest the three words/concepts be in that order in the opening paragraph.

Was not the first question, among the Ancients this: What is it to know?

And the 2nd, If to Know is to be able to answer What is?

The 3rd being, what is it To Do the Right Thing?

---

I've transcribed this observation of mine, posted on the Article, here for your easy reference.

Best regards, Yours truly,--Ludvikus 19:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I see you,ve done it! Now why don't we take advantage of our philosophically wonderous Anglo-Saxon tongue - you know what, I'll put this up on the Philos. Talk page. --Ludvikus 20:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should probably have the discussion there so anyone can comment on it. JJL 20:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And speeking of seeing the forest for the trees - you realize, of course, that if it stick's, we can take pride in introducing/educating the World as to Philosophy, or its History!!! Bringing it to the Masses, if you will! How about the comparison with Holmes and Dr. Watson? Or Marx and Engles?

Anyway, it's rewarding to anticipate that everyone who surfs the WEB, in search of knowledge as to the nature of Philosophy, will come along and read our work! --Ludvikus 21:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Combining forms: Philo- & -sophy

Let's be precise. The above are not words, but combining forms, given to us by the science of linguistics.

And let's take advantage of the POWER of Wikipedia. By merely linking we have all these instantly defined.

So the opening paragraph needs correction: the word, philosophy, with the aid given to us moderns by the science of linguistics we are able to analyze our word into its two combining forms. --Ludvikus 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Here's MW, Collegiate, 10th ed.:

 phil- or philo- combining form [ME, fr. OF, fr. L, fr. Gk, fr. philos dear, friendly]
 : loving : having an affinity for <philoprogenitive>
 (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

 -sophy noun combining form [ME -sophie, fr. OF, fr. L -sophia, fr. Gk,
 :fr. sophia wisdom, fr. sophos]
 : knowledge : wisdom : science <anthroposophy>
 (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

Pasted here, by me, for your reference & convenience. Yours truly, Ludvikus 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

--- I believe you neglected to sign your comments on the Philosophy page. Please go back and do so. I can infer that it's you by its content - with which I agree. But it is not clearly distinguishable from that Dbrucker person - I just can't or won't get his/her name right!

So please go back & sign your name - so the debate it clear & positions are identifyable accordingly. --Ludvikus 19:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, my comments are signed. It must be someone else's comments you're looking at. JJL 19:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking closer, my comments were signed but are now interrupted by a response, leaving them to appear unsigned. JJL 19:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Exactly!!! --Ludvikus 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your mixed-feelings on the parentheticals - it's Dbrucker who want's definitions. Now remembering my ancient Greek study, Socrates, Plato, & Aristotle asked their questions in ORDINARY LANGUAGE. So I've merely put in (parenthetically) these THREE QUESTIONS as they translate into their most elegant Anglo-Saxon versions (o-oh, I just realized I've misspelled "elegant" & that's no good vis-a-vis Dbrucker).

Do The Right Thing

It's no accident that Spike Lee is a successful film maker.

And there is something quite favorable to be said of Rap and the African American experience in that regard.

In particular, Spike Lee did not title his film by the brief-er expression: Do Right.

He chose, instead, the longer, Do the Right Thing.

For the same reason my sensibility, poetic, but more so, philosophical has a strong preference for the longer: conduct Do the Right Thing. --Ludvikus 19:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection Lock - Helpful

Dear JJL, Some of us have a life - beside's pursuing philosophy. And even the Wife of Socrates, legend tells us, complaint about those activities - did he LOVE philosophy more than her?

Anyway, this STRUGGLE is between TWO and TW0.

And you and I are on the same team I think, by and large.

So let's get our act together, iron out our views, and then approach the ADMINISTRATOR with United Front. I've never gone through this before. But having to endure constant un-historical revisions by a highly opinionated set of TWO OTHERS is an interesting chalenge! Do you like football? Not me. Sports are a BORE for me. I enjoy DANCING WITH A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN - and I'm not married!!!

But enough of this personal stuff. Lets come to terms about what is BEST in presenting the NATURE OF PHILOSOPHY in this English Language Wikipedia.

I've done my (far from almost) best to make my points clear on the Philo Talk page.

I'd appreciate it if you express you're difference on MY TALK page - and I'll respond HERE.

When we reach an AGREEMENT let's express it together THERE, on the PHILO Talk page.

Unfortunately, perhaps, POLITICS is required, since TRUTH does not SHINE CLEARLY BEFORE EACH PERSON'S EYES!

Take care, and heed my advice, --Ludvikus 03:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

---

PS: Please excuse the atrocious Typing or Spelling errors above - but I cannot devote my time to correcting my spelling. Like Hans Conrad Joseph Conrad, English is not my native tongue. I only started speaking and writing it at the age of 10. My home laguage (the one I have always spoken to my parents) is Polish, like Conrad's, whom I admire for his command of it - English, that is. I don't know about him for certain - whether he had to work at it, or re-work many drafts. Anyway, you get my drift.

Bye Bye for now! --Ludvikus 03:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I'm sufficiently frustrated with trying to continue at this point. All posting had reached a certain detente when it was simply locked. I think I'll leave it to more patient editors to keep on trying to improve it. Good luck. JJL 03:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious editing on Being and Time

See my message on the talk page of that article. Dbuckner 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The topic is outside my area of knowledge but from that vantage point it's clear to me that the proposed stable version is superior to the other version. JJL 00:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The dreaded introduction

Quite happy to push the bit about first and second order (the 'continuous with' bit that you and I find opaque) to a section lower down where it can get fair treatment. I'm desperately trying to keep everyone happy here! The logical thing is to have a short, sharp introduction, then take the disagreeable parts further down in the article. I wish people could see this. Dbuckner 19:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement on this. The fact that what 'philosophy' means is disputed is well worth discussing in the article, but the cart is now before the horse. Keeping everyone happy is important, yet we seem to be getting something sure to please no one out of it! I don't have a solution beyond this slow process of building consensus (or at least wearing people down). JJL 19:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am suspicious of the word "reason" in your reversion of 00:44 because it was placed there by Ludvikus, but I will not hold any objection for now. I would want to know DBuckners opinion or KD's opinion on it. As I said, I'll leave it up to you and them. Richiar 01:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm...to be honest, I was focusing on the part I edited out and didn't look as closely at that part! Nor am I an expert on this topic. From here:

Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they constuct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that additional information about the world. Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. (Empiricists will at times opt for skepticism as an alternative to rationalism: if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then we don't have them.) Second, empiricists attack the rationalists' accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge.

(Yes, 'constuct' is in the original.) I think the Wikipedia entry here captures those same basic ideas in that first paragraph, doesn't it? JJL 01:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Jujutsu first paragraph

I changed the first article mainly because the Chinese influence sentence breaks up the reasoning for why percussive strikes are not found so often and that is because of the armour - the sentence is badly placed. I say percussive because other types of atemi exist and of course jujutsu should not be capitalized. Other changes were for flow.Peter Rehse 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no disagreement that it was badly placed--I thought so even as I edited it, but it isn't well handled in the Description section later on either so I found it easiest to reinsert it. Perhaps it's best to just edit the Description section to indicate that while Karate shows the Chinese influence more clearly, it's still present in jujutsu. JJL 02:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw someone else removed it also. I agree about the need to make the Chinese influence point - the Description section is probably the best place.Peter Rehse 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

JD

Don't bleat to me about "getting a better reference." You wrote a paragraph that says, "The JD IS NOT a terinal doctorate." and in the next senetnce, "The JD is a terminal doctorate." As it currently stands, the paragraph makes perfectly clear (to the point of the ridiculous, by inserting longwinded bullshit about an internal faculty dispute at one university) that the JD is considered by some to be, and others not to be, and that it depoends on the university and the situation.

I am not a JD - I have no axes to grind here. I, too, think it was a misnomer to go from the LLB to the JD. However, the finest universities in the country, which have the finest law schools in the country, have large faculties where almost every professor has only a JD, or the occasional LL.M., just as almost every clinical professor in every medical school has only the MD. If Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, and U Michigan are content with the JD as a terminal degree, and the ABA is too, then the article, which makes not of objections, is fine as it stands.HarvardOxon 01:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded at the Talk page. The reference doesn't seem to me to be generated by an academic source, but rather by a HR source. JJL 03:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Psy.D.

And btw, most psychologists have, and most schools of psychology grant, the Ph.D. in psychology to clinicians. The Psy.D. is in fact a relative rarity.HarvardOxon 03:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree that it's a rarity, but stronger schools still offer the Ph.D. and weaker schools tend to offer the Psy.D. I don't think I added the Psy.D. info., though? JJL 12:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to go quibbling over lingo, but I'm not certain about this "stronger" vs. "weaker" business......one is built around research, while the other is built around "practice". Buddpaul 01:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the strengths of the schools offering the degrees, not the relative merits of the degrees themselves...I don't see the Psy.D. at big research universities nearly as often as I see the Ph.D. The former seems to be more strongly (though by no means exclusively) associated with small, specialized schools (e.g., Stanford associates with PGSP [2] for this degree). JJL 01:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

JSD

Cite a single American law school that awards earned JSD degrees to students who have not earned the JD, or its foreign equivalent. E.G.: Harvard University Law School:"To be considered for the LL.M. Program, an applicant must have a J.D. (Juris Doctor) from an accredited U.S. law school or a first law degree (J.D., LL.B. or the equivalent) from a foreign law school. Harvard Law School is rarely able to accept into its LL.M. Program anyone who already holds or is pursuing an LL.M. or equivalent degree from another law school in the United States." and furtherHarvard Law School admits approximately 12 to 15 applicants to S.J.D. candidacy each year. Students who have not received an LL.M. degree from Harvard or another leading U.S. law school are virtually never admitted to S.J.D. candidacy. Students who have received an LL.M. degree from another leading U.S. law school are only rarely admitted directly to S.J.D. candidacy. Applicants interested in the S.J.D. program ordinarily must first apply to and successfully complete the Harvard Law School LL.M. program. Successful completion of the Harvard Law School LL.M. program does not, however, guarantee admission into the S.J.D. program -- you may confer with other accredited JSD or SJD programs at other equally prestigious law schools.HarvardOxon

The JD is required for the JSD; I said that ("The J.S.D. (Doctor of Juridical Science) is a research degree, including a dissertation, for those who have already earned a J.D.") [3]. The LL.M. is what is negotiable. Stanford University requires it's special JSM degree instead of its LL.M degree [4]. As another entry in the 'next time do your own dirty work' category, check out Columbia University's page ("To be eligible to apply for the LL.M. or the J.S.D. degree, applicants must hold a first degree in law.") [5]. JJL 00:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

JD in med schools

Check any major American medical school and take a look at professors of ethics. You will find JDs. For instance, Henry T. Greely, J.D., Co-Director of Stanford University law school's program in genomics; George J. Annas, J.D., the Utley Professor and Chair of the Health Law Department at Boston University School of Public Health, as well as Professor at Boston University Medical School; Jessica W. Berg, J.D., Assistant Professor of Law and Bioethics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine; Porfessor Margaret L. Dale, JD, Dean for Faculty and Research Integrity, Harvard Medical School; etc. HarvardOxon

Again, I question your ability to see past your insistence on your own correct views and read what was written. I wrote 'nothing special about med. school' [6] because JDs get similar appointments in business schools, etc. There's no reason to call out medical schools in particular--a JD could be appointed in an A&S college and get tenured. You're too full of vinegar to see that we agree. Lord save me from those who are certain that they are always right. JJL 01:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

JSD prevalence

Just to keep with the theme, as it is a leading institution, and as any research by anyone who claims to know law schools will find it a comparable situation to any other reputable law school, of the 204 members of the Harvard Law School faculty, eight have earned the SJD/JSD (and therefore LLM) and four have earned only the LL.M. (all of the above have JDs, as previously stated). Thats 12 of 204, or about 6 percent, on one of the most prestigious, most highly qualified faculties in the US. Compare that to the percentage of members of the faculty of Ivy League departments in other disciplines who DON'T hold a Ph.D., and you will find the numbers pretty much reversed. Hence, the SJD is quite truly very rare.HarvardOxon

Thinking statistically, a prevalence of >5% seems significant. It certainly isn't the norm to have a JSD; in fact, I'd wager that more faculty have a J.D. and a Ph.D. than a J.D. and a J.S.D. Again, we have agreed on that from the beginning (I said "Some law school faculty also hold the J.S.D. degree." which does not seem to be in dispute [7]) but you're too locked into your own straw man world, assigning easily dismissed views to others, to see it. You are boring me. JJL 01:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

'troll"

No, I'm not a "troll," I want things correct. Read bthe whole damn page, please, before you give me a line of crap. The JSM and the LLM are the same degree,m for god's sake, just expressed using two different Latin phrases, Legum magister vs. Juris Scientiae Magister. As for Columbia, read the whole set of pages: the LL.M> is earned either on its own, or in cursu toward the SJD, just as one can either earn an MA independently or the MA on the way to the PhD : many PhD programs don't say you "need an MA to apply" because you start the program after the bachelor's and get the MA along the way. What I am fed up with on Wiki is not MY need to be right, but the constant re-editing of artticles by people to reduce the factual information in them, making them wrong. If you don't know what the hell you;re talking about, you should keep your mits off an article, and the crap thrown about by 76 and others like him have simply been incorrect, wrong, unfactual. The OR business is also bull, thats not what wiki means by OR. Finally, 5 percent is s statistically significant difference, it is not statistically beyond "rare" when applied in a population: the term 'significant' is being used in two completely different sense. If 95 percent of English profs have a PhD, and only 5 perecnt have an Oxbridge LittD, then the LittD is in fact rare, yeah.HarvardOxon 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW : Stanford: "JSD candidates are selected from among the applicants who have successfully completed the SPILS program." Spils is their JSM, aka LL.M., program. Sorry you were forced to do my "dirty work," but at leats do it right and get the facts correct, iof you are going to be calling me a troll, and ignoring my own graduate degrees to declare me "some harvard undergrad trolling for fun."HarvardOxon 01:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Check the references I gave you. As I wrote a few paragraphs above, Stanford offers both the LL.M. and its own special version of an academic M.S. in jurisprudence, the JSM (Master of the Science of Law). This argument recurs constantly as to what constitutes an academic M.S./M.A. vs. a professional degree--people draw this distinction. The LL.M. is legal training while the M.S. is an academic degree; compare a M.A. vs. a M.F.A. in an arts field (if you can get a M.F.A. you can often also get a M.A. in the same field), or a M.S. and a M.Eng/M.S.E. in engineering, for example. These are two separate types of degrees and you're simply mistaken in conflating them. Stanford requires an academic master's, not a LL.M., and it's a significant difference.

As to Columbia, it allows that the LL.M. can be earned in passing, not that it must. At GWU, the LL.M. is expected but it says in the very same paragraph that that requirement is waivable.

You defining 'rare' by your calculations is indeed an act of OR. In fact I fully agree with you, but that's neither here nor there. Get a cite that says it's rare; otherwise, you're the first person to say it, and that makes it OR. JJL 02:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The troll is gone

I give up, you win. You're the victor and you've accomplished a goal. My account is now abandonned, since it cannot be cancelled. You, 76 (who may well be the same person) you've got what you wanted: a page you own, that is incorrect and misleading, but says what you wish were true but not what in fact is. You've obviously reviewed all my edits on wikipedia and concluded I have not been of benefit to the community nor have I actually added to the usefulness of Wikipedia as a source of information. This is aparrently the consensus. If a person's contributions are unwelcome, and are viewed as "trollish", he should leave Wikipedia. I'll bow to your consensus.HarvardOxon 02:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Suit yourself. JJL 16:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Computational mathematics

The group qualified to reach a consensus is Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics so I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Computational mathematics. Jmath666 06:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable! Thanks! It drives me crazy watching these terms change around me. JJL 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Can we agree not to try to settle on any one meaning but to report what different groups take the term to mean. Jmath666 02:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Having seen you write this: "but that does not seem to be enough to make User:JJL go away and stop claiming that computational mathematics does not exist and pushing to delete the article" [8] I am hard pressed to take your actions in good faith. I have been engaging in discussion on Talk pages rather than taking direct action and you respond by asking for help to make me "go away" and misreporting my views as a claim that comp. math "does not exist". I fear you're suffering from a case of WP:OWN and in light of what I've quoted I take this request as another tactic on another front. JJL 03:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I misunderstood. At least I got those suggestions for DAB, which, after reflection, seemed to be the right thing and I think merges contributions from you as well as from others who responded. Anyway, my editing there is done, and I will move my attention elsewhere. Jmath666 03:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC) I was hard pressed to take in good faith "I suggest redirecting it [computational mathematics] there [to computational science] and editing that article to mention that, indeed, computational science as a named academic program often has an emphasis on the applications to science." I have indeed interpreted that as an intention not to mention computational mathematics in the computational science article at all and so a claim that comp. math "does not exist". Assuming good faith, I could have asked for clarification. But it appeared to me from your curt edit summaries and the history there was not much point to that. OK, assuming good faith, it was a misunderstanding. Jmath666 05:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As you point out, I think it's come to a good end. Taking it to the WikiProject page was a good idea. JJL 19:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I should have asked you to nominate the article formally for AFD (I just learned about that process) instead that would keep it cool. Would you like me to put one line on the wikiproject talk to close the matter that I am sorry I misunderstood your intent and there is consensus now, or we just let it pass. BTW to resist the temptation of WP:OWN it's off my watchlist. Jmath666 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message! I'm glad all is working out here and I certainly appreciate your well-referenced contributions in the area of computation. I don't think it's necessary to update the WikiProject--they seem to have moved on. I thought an AfD was too formal at that stage and figured we'd discuss it first. Things have come to a good point, I think! JJL 03:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding revision of philosophy paragraph

The paragraph you had was similar to what EBuckner had with a variation of a sentence or two. At first I thought it was yours he didn't like, but then I realized it was a reviwion where "reason" was entirely removed from the paragraph. Then I realized you had already reverted it after I made the change. I,m with you on the reason and logic part. My change is just another version of his and yours. Richiar 05:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as long as reason is addressed the rest is just word choice. That paragraph is still rather wordy but I'd prefer to leave it be for now and see progress on the rest of the article continue! JJL 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Philip J Davis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Philip J Davis.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed.D

I have made quite clear evidence in the case of UK Ph.D. programme as well as the Ed.D programme in education. I think you should better check it out before deleting.

I don't see any evidence, just assertions. This is not to say that such evidence cannot exist, merely that I haven't seen it. In particular, comparing what's at Ph.D., it looks like 3 years for a Ph.D. isn't "typical" in the U.K., nor is it supported that 5 years part-time is typical for the Ed.D. The assertion that the word count matches isn't supported and appears to be WP:OR, as is the implicit assumption that, e.g., eight 5,000 word essays and a 40,000 word project report is comparable to one 80,000 word dissertation. (That is, it isn't clear to me that total word count is the most important comparison point. In the U.S., the Ed.D. project is held to a rather lower standard; see Talk:Doctor_of_Education#Ed.D._vs._Ph.D. for some sources regarding this.) I think you need to support your statements with references.

By the way, the article is devolving even further into a defensive claim that the Ed.D. "is too" a real doctoral degree. This is a problem at J.D. too. Perhaps focusing on the comparison misses what's most important about an Ed.D. JJL 12:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are in doubt, why not contacting the schools directly and ask for immediate answers? The number is provided on their official website, do you want it? You are asking the questions on UK situations, not US, don't you think it is better to understand it and get familiar before making judgements? You give me an impression that you are running this page (or more), I wonder if you are employed by Wikipedia. Are you an American?

My "assertions" here are based on the fact in the U.K.(better specified as England) situation.

The Ph.D programme in UK, is somehow different than the Ed.D programme. However, to conclude that it is two different types of degree, I can also provide some schools which adopt the Ed.D instead of Ph.D. On ther other hand, Ed.D can be argued as a professional degree (which it actually is), under the UK legislations, there are NO one piece of evidence claiming the Ed.D programme is as same as the Ph.D programme. Although general requirments of completing a Ph.D is written down on the education chapter on the legislations. However, schools are likely to have their own requirement to fulfiling these requirements.

For full-time study, it will be written down as 3-4 years. The fact is, students are required to complete the programme in 3 years, and hand in their thesis at the first term of the fourth year. Of course, finishing within 3 years limit is ideal, but not many of them can. That extra term would be classified as the same year because it is by law under the university regulations. For example, in the case of Cambridge, they would require the full time Ph.D. to be completed in 9 terms, which 3 terms equal to one year. This kind of strict regulations is in order to help the university of charge extra fees from the student as they will go beyond the 3 years limit as well as helping them from calculating the students and teachers ratio for the education department. On the other hand, if it is written down a clear 4-year full time Ph.D, student are likely to pay the full fees for the 4 years time even though they finish their thesis in 3 years. Also, it may also be the requirment of the university such as Cambridge or Oxford, a requirement to force (persuade) the students to stay for longer in the university. That is their tradition.

Part time PhD is more ambigious, it cannot be subdivided into 1 full time year equals 2 part time years. Different schools have different requirements, again, no formal regulations. E.g. Cambridge would expect students to study 15 terms in part time, while in London, it is possible to finish in 4 years.

The word count situation is written down on the legislation that a PhD degree in UK needs to fulfil a maximum of 80000 words in order to complete the degree and being recognised by the UK government. Of course, the Oxford situation is an exception. The would not be bad to have an assumption to realise the fact that eight 5000 words essays can be equal to the length of an 40000 words project. Under the legislations of a UK Ph.D, it only written down that students need to filfil the requirement set by the university in assessments such as courseworks, essays, project, tests and examinations. It will depends on the university to justify this problem. Cambridge would required six 6000 words essays plus exams and thesis to complete their degree where in London, six essays with different range of words limits plus no exam and thesis to finished the PhD. In Oxford, three 5000 words essays plus exams and thesis. So what? The word count is not the most important, its purely done by the university decision. However, within these three years, since the strong interference of ESRC, the PhD programme has slightly reach a similar structure within UK universities. Six core courses are required with assessment on either essays or exams or none, with or without exams, plus a maximum of 80000 words thesis.

Ed.D and Ph.D, both are regarded at doctorate level in UK. Ed.D is a professional degree while the Ph.D is a research one. It is an important fact to know that the Ed.D in UK is a taught degree, at least in London, not in Bristol. To regard Ed.D is lower than the Ph.D is mainly based on the judgement of the length of thesis, length of study, and the generalisability of this degree, isn't it? I personally do not think a professional degree is lower than the Ph.D, the reason is in UK, the chance of getting professional degree is based on those who have got Ph.D. In other words, after gaining PhD, a person can applied for D.Sc, D.Litt, D.Mus etc., and not the other way round. But for example, Bristol would prefer using Ed.D instead of Ph.D in representing their highest degree in education, the rules will then be changed.

I think you're confused about how Wikipedia works. You must support your assertions; it's not the job of others to find counterevidence, it's your job to supply evidence in the first place. Please read WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:A and consider what's written there. I've placed the standard welcome message with this sort of info. on your Talk page too.

I'm truly not trying to be discouraging. To the contrary: That article needs more info. (but less arguing about which degree is better). But, this is a big community, and you seem not to have learned the rules yet. I suggest you do some reading first. You aren't providing reliable sources and are engaging in original research. Whether or not you're objectively 'right' isn't the question here.

Also, please sign your comments on Talk pages by placing four tildes at the end of them (~ ~ ~ ~, without the spaces). JJL 17:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think anyone in here wants to contribute the most reliable and up-to-date fact to the publics. However, taken into account of this site's main principle, "claims are verifiable, but are not the truth", it would be a mistake for me to be too serious on the matter "fact is fact". As if I have to make a citation or footnote, I would be better working on my books or articles in real life and not in here. I appreciate every contributors who have made sufficient efforts in order to provide the best information, though as you have said, the objective "right" is not the main focus. That would be in no different what so ever to reconsider the time and effort that should have put in on the wikipedia contribution. If I have to classify this site to be a game as I have been doing, the interests come. But if I have to read the instructions before playing, then my interests gone. I don't know is there anyone in the world who would prefer reading the instructions before playing games can still have more fun than they don't. Obviously I am not one of them. But if I have to clarify the fact on the real world as the game is ongoing, I would not step back and make a deep thought and get hesitated. Because there are more people who do not think as I do, not treating this as a game and would rather believe what has been written here as truth. To me, if any contributor who are generous enough with their time to provide informations on clarifying the facts, neither they citated nor footnoted it, by simply edited or deleted my contributions, I would be deeply appreciated.

If the main object is right, the details is not important. Scorto 19:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's Law

(Also on article page)

Thank you for saying I demostrate a lack of understanding of adages, aphorisms, etc. I don't think I do, but that's a different issue. Please also don't revert something so quickly that's active on the talk page without at least allowing some of a discussion to take place. User David above at least thought it was a somewhat worthwile contribution, as did Birdbrainscan, who copy edited it. This is not a logic lesson, it is an explanation of the statistical theory which is involved in the quote. A statement such as "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is self-explanatory, and has no relation to statistics, and it would be a stretch to put it in a logical standard format. Godwin's Law is written in a much more mathematical/logical/statistical format than the metaphorical examples you quoted above, making them not the greatest analogies for defeating my point. Note that it's "Godwin's Law", a very scientific (or strict, or logical) way of putting it. You could try to defeat this by mentioning Murphy's Law, but it definitely isn't as formal as to say something like "the probability approaches one." I also don't believe that, as you said in the edit summary, it is so obvious as to be meaningless. Someone not versed in statistics, concepts of infinity, or mathematical philosophy (and some who are) probably would not see this at first, and may even be offended by being told how "obvious" it is. This is one reason why, in my first version of the section, I included a thought-experiment as a pedagogical tool for those not experienced in statistics to make it easily understandable, as infinity is one of the most misunderstood concepts in math and philosophy. Also, if this is so obvious as to be meaningless, then so is the infinite monkey theorem, but I know people who've definitely had difficulty grasping that concept when it is presented to them, and even dismissing it offhand because they don't understand it. I would hope it wasn't meaningless, as it achieved featured article status, which I would hope most wikipedians have some faith in. I tried to edit in good faith, avoiding POV and original research (which this isn't, it's simply a description of the statistical theory involved, and it is definitely germane to the topic), but I believe the revert was quick and not in the greatest faith. Thus my revert. I don't want a mess of reverts, so could we have a discussion on the article's page please?

The first version I put in is this (I definitely will admit it's a bit wordy):

It is important to note that Goodwin's Law is necessarily valid, being a form of statistical taugology. It is a rule of statistics that if there is a probability of event x occurring, however slight, as it is iterated towards infinity (with the use of a tool such as calculus), the probability it will have occurred invariably approaches one. This is illustrated by a thought experiment: if one considers rolling a million-sided die an infinite amount of times, every possible resulting number will have also occurred an infinite amount of times. For this reason, the standard form, for any event X, given that X has a probability greater than 0 of occurring, as the opportunities for this event near infinity (grow increasingly larger), the probability that it will have happened approaches unity (one), is tautological. Thus, a seemingly absurd statement in this form, such as "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability that the word orangutan will be misspelled Shakespeare approaches one," is necessarily true. Mathematically, this is similar to the concept of the infinite monkey theorem. Chris b shanks 06:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It's not my intention to engage in a revert war--I only reverted once, IAW what I see as the consensus on the page that reading too much mathematical depth into a lawyer's phrasing is missing the forest for the trees. BTW, there's no such thing as a 'statistical tautology' (e.g., the phrase appears nowhere else in Wikipedia). I'll continue on the Talk page. JJL 13:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point of the law. All I was thinking when I made the edit was that if it was stated like: 'In an internet discussion that gets heated, the longer it gets, the higher the chance someone will refer to Hitler,' then it wouldn't have been near as memorable or developed within the internet culture as a reference. The reason I believe it stayed was the fact of the technical wording. If it was worded in an offhand way, as above, it wouldn't pack anywhere near the same 'punch' as it does the way it is worded. I understand the point it's trying to make, but also believe the structure is important for the reason I gave above; it's formality is what seems to give it validity, and that's why it's called a 'law'... because it sounds technical and scientific. Thus the discussion of the mathematics involved, and how it is necessarily true. I understand how there is always one possiblity for something not to occur when we are talking about limits (it should be noted that this applies to Godwin's Law also--it may be possible that there will be infinite posts in a discussion that do not refer to Hitler). But the reader must remember this is specific to the term 'limit,' and not when we are referring to a probability of 1. It is not possible for an event with a probability of 1 to not occur, nor is it possible for an event with a probability of 0 to occur. What is important, however, is that it is possible for an event with a probabilistic limit of 1 not to occur (in most circumstances), and it is possible for an event with a probabilistic limit of 0 to occur (in most circumstances - for example, I hope one would not debate with me that while a logical contradiction has a probability of 0, it still may happen). And JJL, please stop telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about and don't understand probability. Thanks. Chris b shanks 03:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"It is not possible for an event with a probability of 1 to not occur, nor is it possible for an event with a probability of 0 to occur." You have no idea what you're talking about, and you don't understand probability (or, it appears, limits). I don't say this to be mean; it's just a fact. In any event, if the casual user must understand limits--i.e., precalculus--to understand Godwin's Law, it won't be very useful.

Didn't you quit Wikipedia? JJL 03:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a little graph that made it easier for math novices to visualize, but JJL saw fit to remove it several times. Amusingly, acting as a wikipedia nazi on an article discussing the over-use of nazi comparisons. JJL is truly the type of user that turns many people off from contributing to wikipedia. Why bother contributing something that is obviously relevant and adds to the article if some user (such as JJL) with way too much time on their hands is just going to delete it without discussing it with the contributor? Shame on you, JJL. Shame on you and all other like you who remove valid content that fits all wikipedia rules and standards just because you don't like them. Sniper Fox 19:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to discuss it with you at Talk:Godwin's_Law#What_does_.27probability_approaches_one.27_mean.3F. There was no repsone. It's OR. How do you know tha graph has that concavity, for example? JJL 19:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy reversion

Hello! Do you think you could help me. You undid my addition to the philosophy page and I wondered where would be more appropriate to introduce the Philosophy of Travel?

Thank you PSBennett 16:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I wonder if it's better for now to add it as a topic in the box here. Until there's more to the article, it's hard to say where it should fit. I suggest concentrating on expaning the article (while continuing to avoid WP:COI). Good luck! JJL 18:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I will keep plugging away (so far I have only added a few questions. I have another question that you might be able to help me with if that is ok. I went to the talk page of Christmas Island and have asked twice whether I can add (in my opinion) an external link to a site that I work on. It was to avoid accusations of COI that added the question but to no avail.

South Pacific, Africa, Asia and South America (and the countries within) could really do with links to my site (to add to the travel perspective).I cannot add the data to here as the licences are not compatible. There seems to be a rather unusual bias towards wikitravel which is nothing to do with Wikimedia and is owned by a large corporation that in the end will have act in the wishes of its shareholders...Do you know how this can be changed? PSBennett

I suppose this [9] is the relevant concern...in my personal opinion, if it's a nonprofit site and valuable, I'd suggest adding it and seeing if it stays. If it's for-profit, then I'd be disinclined to suggest you add it; rather, look around for a comparable not-for-profit site. I did look at the site but didn't attempt to make such a determination. JJL 03:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Don't take this the wrong way, but what's the difference between Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidents by longevity 2nd nom and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Noble Prize in Peace winners by longevity. They're essentially the same, but you voted differently on both. I'm just curious as to your logic behind it is, so I can possibly rethink the noms. --Whsitchy 18:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I was curious about that myself even as I did it, but couldn't give myself a good answer. To my mind, lists of U.S. presidents sorted by various criteria have a history of being almanac-ic and even encyclopedic, while Nobel Peace Prize winners doesn't stick out like that for me. My Funk & Wagnalls on the shelf here has a special volume for presidents with all sorts of trivia like this...that's the precedent that's in my mind. I grant there's some inconsistency and U.S.-centric reasoning there, but lists like this of senior political figures seems like an exception to the rule for me. JJL 19:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Ashihara2.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ashihara2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

You wrote this in the Murloc deletion discussion.

Keep regrettably, the Pokemon precedent applies.

Is the Pokemon precedent thing what I wrote? Just curious. RuneWiki777 23:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we're saying the same thing, yes--if every Pokemon gets its own page, how can we object to this? JJL 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. RuneWiki777

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam (2nd nomination)

What notable events? She is aq local councillor!--Vintagekits 13:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more about the college--this seems to be the only reference to the 25-year existence of a college, which seems notable to me (she started a college that later merged with another institution). JJL 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How to proceed on Philosophy

I'm wondering what needs to be done with the Philosophy artcle to work on it further. Do you have any ideas on that? Richiar 14:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I find it quite a mess and am at somewhat of a loss as to how to proceed. It's principally a list of 20-some brief paragraphs on marginally related ideas, and needs to be rewritten into a single article that flows through the most important of those topics. But there has never been any enthusiasm on the Talk page for coming up with a plan to do that...I must admit that I am fairly pessimistic. It's a page with many defenders but they seem to mostly defend their particular area of it. The Abrahamic stuff on it now is just another example of that. I mentioned on a now-archived Talk page that this page [10] seems superior to ours and could be a model...that's roughly the direction I'd like to head, but without a consensus up front, it seems pointless. Such changes would be reverted to restore prominence to the various disciplines/schools.

Sorry for the pessimism. I'm open to ideas. JJL 03:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Punctal plugs

I can't believe (I am horrified) you had the nerve to start the article punctual plugs without doing any real research whatsoever.

You didn't even spell the term correctly. The correct spelling is "punctal", and article name should be punctal plug, and not anything else. I urge you to have the article you started completely deleted, and maybe move its content punctal plug.

Secondly, there is already well sourced content about the topic in the Keratoconjunctivitis sicca article, but it seems that you didn't bother to look. Much of this content can be moved into punctal plug, although this will take a bit of work in order to properly duplicate the named references.

Let's not actually make Wikipedia a public lavatory like Robert McHenry thinks it is[11].

--Amit 18:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A Google search on "punctual plugs" shows that this is a common spelling; it's also the spelling used in the referenced article. Yes, "punctal plugs" gets more hits. Please note this comment line in the dry eyes page's code:

If this section expands sufficiently, perhaps most of the info here could be moved into its own "Punctal plug" article.

I am hoping the article will indeed be expanded. Note, Keratoconjunctivitis sicca is not the only indication for the plugs, as the eye surgery article indicates. I am not interested in your disputes with Mr. McHenry. JJL 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think my message has been understood. "Punctal" is the one and only correct spelling. "Punctual" is incorrect, wherever it is used. Please now go back and review my previous message. --Amit 20:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I understood it. Wikipedia is littered with people like you, who are forever certain that their view is the only right one. It's very tiring. It's clear that the term either originated as 'punctal' and was misspelled/misunderstood as 'punctual' or that some individual(s) believed that the adjectival form of punctum was punctual, preserving the punctu- part (possibly an incorrect comparison to manual; I don't know). But of the four spellings "punctal plug(s)" and "punctual plug(s)" the only one attested at Google News is "punctual plugs". As per the link in the References, the Mayo Clinic page also attests this spelling ("One approach to treating dry eyes is plugging the tear ducts with tiny silicone plugs (punctual plugs)." [12]). Now, I'm not doubting that you are more knowledgeable than those dolts at the Mayo Clinic; I'm just saying that people seem to more commonly use "punctual plugs" than "punctal plugs" in material intended for a non-expert audience, from what I'm seeing.

Frankly, I could care less whether the info. is at Punctal plugs or at Punctual plugs, as long as the other redirects to it. If it'll help you sleep more soundly at night and keep Robert McHenry from your door, switch the material to Punctal plugs and make Punctual plugs redirect to it. Feel free to add an admonishment to anyone who searched for the latter term. (Added later: As per your initial suggestion, I'll do this myself. JJL 20:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

I do feel it merits its own page separate from the dry eyes page, though certainly it needs enhancement. JJL 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Fred King

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Fred King, by Dipics (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Fred King seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Fred King, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Fred King itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I stated he was a CEO and founder of a notable martial art...it seems to me that "it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable" isn't quite right. JJL 15:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Mo Duk Pai Kung Fu

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Mo Duk Pai Kung Fu, by Kim Dent-Brown (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Mo Duk Pai Kung Fu is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Mo Duk Pai Kung Fu, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Mo Duk Pai Kung Fu itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

These were deleted much too speedily for me to be able to add a {{hangon}} tag. I created them late last night and intended to work more on them this morning, but was not speedy enough. JJL 14:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy of maths: Please restore Lakatos references you deleted

Logicus to JJL: I would be grateful if you would very promptly restore the two references to Lakatos books – namely his Proofs and Refutations and Volume 2 of his Philosophical Papers - I added to the 'Philosophy of Mathematics' article’s References, but which you have deleted. The answer to your question to justify this deletion ‘Where are they used as a reference here ?’ is that they are references for the article’s discussion of Lakatos’s ‘Quasi-Empiricism’. Note that although the books are not explicitly referred to by name, this is certainly not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia References for some topic. And this article’s References include many authors who are not even referred to in the text e.g. Mount and Smullyan. So please kindly restore this completely out of order deletion of the two Lakatos references. --Logicus 19:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what's "out of order" about this. But, feel free to restore them. I won't remove them again. The references section there is getting a bit overstuffed, though. JJL 21:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Emo_(slang) move

Hi, I saw you participated in this discussion on whether the article should be removed. Now we are discussing whether it should be moved. The discussion is mostly me and one other editor, and I think we are hitting deadlock time and again. I am not asking you to informally mediate, but another opion would be nice.

Please refrain from making personal attacks

I would respectfully ask that you do not make personal attacks as you did here. Making such a conclusion assumes bad faith and is a comment on me, not on my opinion. Please note that policy and guidelines make it clear that one should discuss the matter at hand, not the editors in the discussion. Consensus is not formed by discrediting me or my personality, but by resolving content/style/policy disputes, in accordance with policies, to the satisfaction of the involved parties. Thank you. --Cheeser1 04:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it was a personal attack. I think it's simply a matter of fact, and relevant to the question of whether a consensus has been achieved. I've read a great many of your posts by now and they are condescending (e.g. "I've already made most of this clear" here) and bull-headed. I did WP:AGF but I feel I now have sufficient information to re-evaluate that assumption. Consider your recent post, from the second time you said you were going to depart from the debate: "Due to the disposition of others in this discussion, my contributions are being disregarded and dismissed" (here). As long as you believe you're working from pure logic but those with whom you are debating are acting merely from their disagreeable dispositions, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I really don't mean to be rude, but I think you're too set in your course to see how the two sides are talking past one another and that the other side has some valid points. It takes much hubris to believe that that many posters are unable to see what's so eminently clear to you. Constantly insisting that only your view of appropriate sociological usage must be applied and that you are the arbiter of what is and isn't consistent with policy is too set-in-stone to allow a fair review of the material by a group rather than a bunch of individuals, and constantly making posts that repeat what rules your opponents are violating is, to use your term, puerile.

By the way, I'm not trying to push you away. The article would be Emo (the best subculture in the whole wide world) by now if there wasn't an opposing viewpoint to provide criticism of the sources, which are surely open to such criticism. But whether by the fault of others or of yourself, you've ended up in a corner and largely marginalized. You're no longer effective opposition--just a broken chime. That's good for the subculturalists but--and here I am in full agreement with you--bad for Wikipedia, if proponents of the subject of an article can make it what they will. I feel that Emo subculture is justified but your concerns and comments are what caused me to draw back from Emo (subculture), which seems to me a stronger claim--that it's categorized as such, not just often labeled as such. I understand that you don't see this as much of a difference, but I see it as the kind of difference one can reasonably hope to make on a largely unmoderated, open community like this, unless there is admin involvement...which in my experience has been a very mixed bag. JJL 13:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If "emo subculture" is something it's called, but its not properly a subculture (hence not "emo (subculture)"), then we need only have a redirect at emo subculture. We already do. (I've explained that already too, and pointing out that I am repeating myself is perfectly reasonable.) I never said that people are merely acting from their disposition, but pointing out that many people have decided to support the move at least partially on the grounds that "cheeser is the only one who disagrees" or "we have a majority" (going so far as to characterize majority rule as a shotgun pointed at my face). Citing policy is not puerile, and having to repeat myself because nobody cares to address the violations of policy the intend to introduce into the article isn't either. --Cheeser1 15:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the shotgun comment was definitely childish and inappropriate. As to the repition...I suggest that at the least it is of diminishing effectiveness, and I stand by my harsher characterization above. Further discussion is probably most appropriate at the Talk page. JJL 15:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Burke family

Hi there. Surely three members are enough to be a political family. Noteabiliy of the members is another area which can be and should be debated, but if you don't mind, please alter your comment. If the Bush family only consisted of the three most well known, would we be deleting them as they "didn't have enough family"? Timeshift 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comparison is not apt: The Bush family includes a senator (Prescott), two presidents (George, George), a governor (Jeb), and a prominent industrialist (Samuel). The family has been influential since before the first Bush presidency. What if there were only three of them? I don't know. The Burke family entry lacks evidence that the family as a whole has wielded influence or otherwise been important, despite the comment at the AfD page. I'm comfortable with my remarks. JJL 00:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Peru Surfing

Hi, I've added a number of sources since you last commented on "Who Invented Surfing" I'd appreciate your looking at the new documents especially #4. Also, Henning has written a lot about surfing including one book about Polynesia...his reseach indicates Peru as the origin and is generally accepted in the most of "Knowledgable" surfing community. The authors and their credentials of Document 4 are a sign of this acceptance. Surfmac2004 21:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I had been following it. Definite improvement and better sources, which is appreciated, but I'm afraid it still reads as an essay to me and I think it's best to merge and useful info. JJL 02:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

List of dubious and uncertain Wikipedia articles

• • Chuckle **, that one made me laugh. Mindraker 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Duchess Marie of Mecklenburg

I invite you to reconsider your Afd vote in light of the further information I have supplied and the changes I have made to the article. Noel S McFerran 21:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Projpanese edits on TKD article

The issue of karate's affect on TKD has been beaten to death in both the TKD and karate article. Please review past discussions on this and propose edit changes in the talk page. Many editors on both sides of the issue have discussed this and difficult resolutions have been reached. I'm open to further discussion but please propose and participate in the talk page before making edits and reverting as other editors have done. Thanks.melonbarmonster 02:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt amongst serious, neutral scholars that TKD is a derivative of Shotokan. Surely the page should reflect this? I have made a comment on the Talk page at TKD. JJL 04:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There are rules to editing. Respect the process please. You can't make unilateral edits when there is a history of extensive discussion in the talk page on this exact topic.melonbarmonster 04:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of citations, can you cite the Wikipedia rule you're referring to above: "You can't make unilateral edits when there is a history of extensive discussion in the talk page on this exact topic." (emphasis added) JJL 04:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please check out WP:Con and WP:RW. Let's keep the dispute in the talk page and leave the article at its last state of consensus.-- melonbarmonster (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The first link is broken. I don't understand the relevance of the second link to this discussion. I refer you again to WP:OWN, WP:V, and WP:RS. -- JJL (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Kyusho Jitsu Page Edits

JJL,

I am not sure why you removed the references I listed. Please help me understand your rationale. Mine was to illustrate that not everyone who studies K-J is related to, or even believes the same things as Dillman. There are a lot of folks out there who believe you can control energy, and a lot that don't. I listed Kyushospace specifically because the site has people in both camps ...if you read some of the postings there, you'll find that there are people from all different arts, and of vastly different belief systems. My intent was not to advertise for them, but to provide information that points out that not everyone is in Dillman's camp.

Scanegi (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message! It just seemed biased to list only E. Pantazi's page, and it's usual to avoid using fora as references here (they're just collections of conversations). I think it'd be better to list several other K-J folks (say, Rick Clark, or W. Higganbottam (sp?)) or none at all than to list only one. JJL (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair put. Let me rework it including some other practitioners (I think it's Higganbotham, by the way). I get your point on the forum ... I do think it could be mentioned in line simply in the context of reinforcing both the prevalence of KJ practitioners in the martial arts, as well as supporting the point that not every adherent of KJ believes the Dillman teachings. Thanks for the reply. Scanegi (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Shingitai Jujitsu

Please note that your notability debate is flawed. Shingitai Jujitsu was founded by John Saylor. Please note his biography per his website,"John Saylor is a former 3-time National Judo Champion, 2-time Pan American Medalist, and coach of the U.S. National Judo Training Squad at the Olympic Training Center for 7 years. In 1987 Saylor was voted Coach Of The Year by the United States Judo Association. Today he coaches submission wrestling, jujitsu, self-defense, and mixed martial arts fighters at his “Barn Of Truth Dojo” in Perrysville, Ohio."

It's philosophy is best described in the University of Tennessee website about Shingitai Jujitsu: http://web.utk.edu/~utmaclub/juji/history.php. A sampling of additional clubs that teach Shingitai Jujitsu philosophy are:

http://johnsaylor-sja.com/ http://www.welcomematjudoclub.com/ http://asianma.com/jujitsu.html http://www.midohiomatclub.com/ http://www.lawrencegrapplingclub.com/ http://selfdefensecenter.com/umac/index.html http://www.thefightfarm.com/ http://www.westshorejujitsu.com/ http://www.kc.net/~jujit/index.htm http://combatjiujitsu.tripod.com/index.html

I request the page be reinstated. The consensus was based on incomplete information. Ooda 0402 (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)ooda_0402

I can't help you other than to suggest you request reconsideration at WP:DRV. You could also contact the closing administrator. If you feel that John Saylor is notable, perhaps it would be best to make a page about him and include some info. on his system there. JJL (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon Antoine Jean L'Huillier

Hi. I have two questions. Why have you cancelled the four different spelling of his name? It is enough to click on the link at the bottom of the stub to see the article (which is the main source of the wiki-stub) with the spelling Lhuilier. It is enough to use a search engine to find such a site with the spelling Lhuillier. And the second one: have you bolded the name by one l ? In efect there's difference between the article's title and its beginnig... IMHO it doesn't look very good Interpunk1 (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I meant to cancel any spellings...I'm going with the one-'L' spelling from the three sources given in the article itself (his own mémoire, Grabiner, and MacTutor). My intention was to make the one-'L' spelling the articlee and the two-'L' spelling the redirect. The spellings without apostrophes occur but are clearly not how he would have written it nor how academic authors seem to refer to him. What would you like to see changed? JJL (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I just think for someone who looks for some information about L'Huillier it would be useful to find the all four his surname spellings. IMO the more information, the better. I apologaize for disturbing Interpunk1 (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to that--redirects are cheap! Does it make sense to create redirect pages for Simon Antoine Jean Lhuilier and Simon Antoine Jean Lhuillier? I'd prefer to do that rather than have the lengthy lists of variants at the main page, but now that I fully understand your point I agree that someone searching for Lhuiler should come upon this page somehow and without it appearing there they won't. I'll create the redirects for now. JJL (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I could agree but only partly. The point is: for someone who knows only the spelling with the apostrof redirections are not useful. I know the situation because I was in it maybe two weeks ago. I met the without-apostrof spelling by accident... Look there. Interpunk1 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the alternate spellings at the end of the article. Note that there's also e.g. Simon Lhuilier. JJL (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Zipota

Hi, JLL.

I am concerned about the veracity of this article (stub) you just created. I have never before heard of this "Basque martial art" and, when someone mentioned it elsewhere (in the Basque sports article, I think) everybody (Basque editors mostly) was puzzled, and nobody had ever heard of it.

The references are not enough to justify the article: i.e. there's no reference to the name "Zipota" or the Basque background of this art. The name is actually in French "dance de savate" and there's nothing that would seem to back your claims.

I strongly suggest you to look for a better source or I fear that your creation may be put for deletion. --Sugaar (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. To be frank, I share some of these concerns. I'm not a Zipota enthusiast or expert but had come across it while looking up info. on the associated stick and knife arts. Unfortunately, as with so much material on the martial arts, it's hard to differentiate lore from fact. I will try to better source it so please do give me some time, but I am also hoping that someone more knowledgeable than I will see it's now there and add to it. Certainly, I am convinced that there are Basque martial artists who sincerely believe they practice a native version of savate. JJL (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Usenet Salute

I've prodded it for deletion.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! JJL 19:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

I've added an opinion of "rename" in the discussion which appears not to have been considered in the debate. I encourage you to review my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) and determine if you need to reconsider your !vote. Regards. -- Whpq 18:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been following the subsequent debate and noted the changes in the article in question, but I'll take a closer look. JJL 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Darboux's formula

Pardon for the tags, but HUH?! Please explain it as if to a layman. I have a doctorate degree, and I can't grasp your stub. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to do more with it to indicate where and why it's used. I don't think there's hope to make it truly accessible to someone with a doctorate in, say, English (not sure what your area is)--that isn't what's done for other math. entries. But, I can certainly give it a more accessible intro. at least. JJL 22:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1