User talk:Ludwigs2: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

"I don't think Ronz is actually going to communicate his objections (he rarely does)" [1] And in a discussion of WP:NPA no less! Please remove it. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of evidence that you regularly revert without discussion, and you have publicly asserted that you do so because you cannot be bothered debating chages you think are stupid. It cannot be considered a personal attack if you proudly claim that you do it. --Ludwigs2 16:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the delusion you have going on. Please keep it to yourself. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the current ArbCom Enforcement proposals you've made, how about demonstrating apply them at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks? --Ronz (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the term 'demonstrating'; I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting. I'm happy to do so, mind you, but I'm not sure how a 'demonstration' fits into a policy page. Are you thinking a proposed rewording? I have one I started there anyway which I need to get back to, so adding another iron to that fire is easy enough. --Ludwigs2 03:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sound like you don't understand the very words you've written in your proposed resolution for appeal. --Ronz (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol - no. If that's what you have in mind then I'll get to proposing them for NPA fairly soon. I was just trying to suss out what you were thinking, to see if we are on the same page. You spoke obliquely (and you still do), which makes it a bit difficult.

Ronz, I'm doing my best to restart from a tabula rasa perspective, where I can give up on old conflicts. You can still be upset at me if you want, but I'm aiming to be collaborative. You and I are most definitely still going to disagree on certain issues (I think that's unavoidable), but I'd like it if we could disagree without the drama. With that in mind, if you have something you want me to do (or don't want me to do for that matter), I'm willing to listen. I can't guarantee I'll agree, but if you spell it out in non-uncertain terms you'll get as fair a response as I can give. --Ludwigs2 04:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Please refactor your comments" --Ronz (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

again, not sure what you're asking/reaching for. --Ludwigs2 05:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. that's a serious statement. I honestly don't know what you're referring to. if you'd like me to refactor something, give me a diff and a statement of what you want refactored; I'm happy to do it. --Ludwigs2 05:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a diff, a quote, and asked you to remove it. How about I simply do it for you? --Ronz (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh, that. I'm sorry, I just got confused. done. satisfactory? --Ludwigs2 05:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's a small step in the right direction. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we've ever worked on the same article, but I do recognize your name, and I've noticed that you always make thoughtful comments in whatever discussions I happen to be following. I thought you raised a great point about editors who go overboard and treat any non-destructive presentation of pseudoscience as advocacy.[2] This, too, is a big problem on Wikipedia, one that AFAIK, hasn't really been addressed. But I think this comment[3] is a bit too aggressive. I did not participate in the other discussions over POV and this was IIRC my first ever edit regarding the article. Don't lump me into the same category as other editors. You don't know who I am or what motivates me. (No, I'm not scared of astrology.) Now, I'm a big boy. I can take it. But this might put off other editors. Remember that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. (Not that I'm perfect either.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if that came off as too aggressive. I'll edit it if you like, but allow me to point out that I am honestly perplexed by these points of contention. Adding scare-quotes to a term like respected has only one obvious purpose in that context - to assert that the writer actually believes that the opposite is true. Published authors may take that liberty, but an encyclopedia shouldn't, not if it wants to maintain an impression of neutrality.

What bothers me about this is that fringe topic articles are full of this kind of thing, from both sides of the fence: editors making argumentative assertions and petty snubs as though they think they are going to win some battle on emotional rather than scientific grounds. It is impossible for me to judge motivations, obviously, but even assuming the best motivations possible, the point about whether astrologers can or should be considered 'respected' is trivial sensationalism. As far as I'm concerned we should allow them to be respected in their field, and get back to describing what the field is so that people can evaluate it in an unbiased fashion.

What we have here is a dispute in the literature about the value of astrology. The dispute needs to be described, yes, but we shouldn't (as editors) engage in the dispute ourselves. Yet that's precisely what's happening with moves like the one you suggested. Can you see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 01:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in general, but disagree with you in this particular instance. "Respected" was being used in Wikipedia's voice. I don't think the statement was true or verifiable. If the text had said something like "astrologers respected by other astrologers" or "astrologers respected within astrology" or something like that, I would have been OK with it. In any case, unless someone reverts BeCritical's edit, I consider the matter resolved.

But the real reason why I came to your talk page was expressed in my closing comments:

• But this might put off other editors. Remember that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

I'm putting this is bold-face because, like I said, this was the main point I was trying to get at.

(And like I said, I am not perfect. Yesterday I told an editor they were wrong and I probably shouldn't have done that. In fact, I'm feeling a bit guilty about that. We're all human, though.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I've given up trying to catch flies on fringe pages. you watch what happens - there are already a number of editors who are simply going to plug up the page by refusing to discuss anything and refusing to allow any editing to get done, no matter how silly their reverts are. It doesn't matter how nice or how mean I am to them, they are going to behave the same way, like spoiled, angry babies. sooner or later they are going to try to get me blocked, and may very well succeed (because I don't really care enough anymore to dodge). I am tired of having to kiss science-troll ass to get anything done on project. I'm sorry if part of that sour attitude bounces off onto you, but that's really as far as I care to go on it. --Ludwigs2 04:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Switching gears a bit...is it possible that you can write up your thoughts in a user essay? I agree with you that editors going overboard in debunking fringe theories is a real problem on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're making some excellent points on the article talk page. Are you considering my request to write down your thoughts on a user essay? If not, maybe I'll do it. But I'd rather be lazy and let you do the work. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I seem to have missed these posts in cross-chatter. That's an interesting thought. Maybe I'll start that this weekend. when I do, I'll drop a link in your talk and we can collab on it. --Ludwigs2 03:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I have your talkpage on my watchlist. It's not necessary to drop a note on my talk page if you don't want to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about this as a sexual orientation? You want to support its inclusion at the Sexual orientation article? Homosexuals and zoosexuals, in the same boat. You can come in and comment on the talk page. 120.203.215.11 (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not support its inclusion as a sexual orientation. There was an editor trying to get it included on the sexual orientation template, and I told him he should go and get it included on the main sexual orientation page first and stop arguing about it on the template page. If there's actually some danger of it making its way onto the main page, I'll weigh in against that; I just figured the people at the main page were better equipped to handle this kind of thing. do you need me to say something to that effect? --Ludwigs2 01:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh, here's another one. This guy has posted the same identical canvassing request to countless user talk pages. All through open proxy IP addresses. We block 'em as we find 'em. The message above was unlikely in response to anything you did on Wikipedia. It seems to be targeting random user talk pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the result of this AE thread. You are banned from the topic of astrology, broadly construed, for six months. If you believe that the sanction is not warranted you may appeal it to WP:Arbitration enforcement using the {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template or to Arbcom directly. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The real problem here is that I am objectively right but socially maladroit. If I were not objectively right I'd have gotten in far more serious trouble a long time ago; if I were not socially maladroit I'd be an admin. It's a problem for me and for everyone, I realize, but all I can do is do what I think is right as best I can, and doubtless that will not satisfy everyone."

That's about how I see it anyway though we disagree on some things. Well sorry you got banned, I'm sure we'll meet again on some other article. Best (: B^e——C_ritical 16:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've appealed, and it's not a huge issue regardless. --Ludwigs2 17:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was rude of me. The problem is, I've seen you around, and don't like your approach on alternative medicine. Not your orientation, your approach. I had a similar problem a year or so ago with some vehement anti-acupuncture editors. It's my opinion that you understand the principle that health-related articles must be based on only the highest classes of evidence, but believe acupuncture is some kind of exception to that standard. Please prove me wrong by your future behaviour. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not what I think. I believe that articles should be neutral and unbiased, without exception, and that the rubric that medicine articles must be 'based on the highest classes of evidence' often gets in the way of neutrality. I understand the reasoning behind the rubric - fears about the promotion of poor techniques - but I disagree that fair treatment of the subject is equivalent to promotion.

Be aware that this is the kind of argument I'll be making: I will be suggesting that an excessive focus on modern medical practice is damaging to article because it precludes an accurate understanding of acupuncture. I will not be suggesting that there be no reference to modern medicine, just that an appropriate balance be struck. I'd appreciate it if you worked with me to find that balance. --Ludwigs2 13:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem including the acupuncturist's beliefs in the article, provided the article makes it plain the theory is contradicted by science, and the entire effect of acupuncture is placebo, with the possible exception of its effect on certain negative bodily feelings. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - uh, ok. I suspect you're going to have to bend a little farther than that, though. Keep in mind that the purpose of this article is not for us to assess acupuncture on our own, but rather to describe differing viewpoints on acupuncture, of which modern medicine is only one. per wp:NPOV, "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." There is a dispute in the general public about the use of acupuncture, and it is not our job to assert that any one perspective is correct or incorrect, regardless of how convinced we are of the case. --Ludwigs2 15:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm half-way through your argument on Mohammed/Images and have to say you are rising rapidly in my esteem. Thank you for raising this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're in agreement on the presentation of acupuncture, if you've got no problem with a clear presentation of the evidence and its strength. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This. 68.54.4.162 (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:War of the Pacific. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have posted the updated text in discussion. The point here is to explain Grau's notability. We have sources which prove that Grau's notability helped rally Peruvian morale in the early stages in the conflict (and there are no sources which contradict this position). Hence, we then need to explain why Grau received this notability, and this is where the one sentence which explains the reason for the term "knight of the seas" comes into play. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ludwigs2. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For the work you've done so far on Men's rights and for all the work you're going to do. It's a little preemptive, but anyone who survives on that page deserves it! Noformation Talk 19:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Talk:Muhammad/images -- It's kind of odd to see a request for admin action on a talk page where a few admins are already WP:INVOLVED in the discussion and can't take any administrative action, but for what it's worth, I left a note for Tarc about WP:NPA. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it best to go easy. It seems unlikely to me that the discussion will come to a reasonable understanding, but there's no hope of that at all if we allow tempers to fly off the handle. However, since you encouraged him to be gruff on his talk page, I responded to him in a gruff fashion (just so that he knows I can); he and I will find our own level of discourse.

I'm now considering which form of dispute resolution is most appropriate for the page, and I asked on the talk page. time to move away from the stalemate and get some better perspectives. --Ludwigs2 04:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's like this. Imagine if you give a child a wonderful toy that makes a great big noise. Now, invite their friends (also children) over to play with this toy. Make sure there is enough to go around. Now, give them all guns.

Imagine now an adult walking into the room and trying to take their toy away. Under normal circumstances, the children make an allmighty fuss and there's lots of crying and temper tantrums, possibly some hitting, but the adult can take the toy away and eventually the children calm down and go and play with something else. Except this time, they have guns. Guess what happens?

In an adult environment, all images of a contraversial nature would be hidden and users could make an easy choice to opt-in to see them. No child would be in any position to make the utterly, utterly childish cry of "OMG CENSORSHIP" about a perfectly reasonable editorial choice that happens every day in normal, adult media enterprises... or rather, they'd make their "OMG CENSORSHIP" tantrum, but the adults would ignore them.

At some stage, most of the people you're conversing with are going to grow up and think "oh my, how could I have been so childish". I know I did about any number of things and I imagine you did too. The others will be wearing tin-foil hats well into their sixties and voting green or national-socialist, depending on their general political leanings. But right now, you're just trying to take a shiny toy away from a bunch of kids with guns. You're going to get shot.101.118.48.0 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't encourage him to be gruff. He was already being gruff. I simply acknowledged that's the way he is, after some years of crossing paths with him.

Re the IP's comment: An opt-in choice with the default as opt-out is an interesting proposition that bears some consideration. I can see the can of worms that might open up though, because it would require someone to decide what images would be hidden, and then we're back where we started. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps I misread his talk. I saw this: "By the way, I thought your response to Ludwigs2 was well done." but the timestamp didn't register properly. If you'd like me to retract my comment at wikiquette, I'm happy to, just let me know.

to and re the IP: the opt-in thing is an interesting idea, but it won't solve the problem. the real problem is getting people to use adult moral reasoning on project. Most of us do, but on the internet there are no social controls so people who decide not to can go hog-wild.

as to getting shot… this is the condition of my existence on wikipedia. I'm smart, I'm tenacious, I generally have a clear vision on things, and I tend to get involved on articles where people don't much like my being smart, tenacious and clear. do you have any idea how many people on project would like to see me indef-blocked if they could only figure out proper grounds for it? I cannot cross my fingers and spit without three random editors writing impassioned pleas to admins to impose sanctions on me. It sucks to be me.

On the other hand, it's an online encyclopedia - I'm supposed to take that kind of drama seriously? --Ludwigs2 05:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not willing to use e-mail to exchange sources, I can't really get anything I have to you. You may want to try WP:LIB instead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

at Men's rights‎, Ludwig. (Which, I associate with Ludwig Drums rather than Mad King Ludwig or The BIG L). I find that article to be a double insult, (1) to wikipedia and (2) to me as a man. You are showing me how these feelings can be properly dealt with, rather than, feeding the animals, which is my reflex position. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For this helpful edit summary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Please complete this promptly or it will be removed. You might want to copy the template to your userspace and complete it there first then copy it over. Risker (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've never done this before, and did not realize there was an issue taking my time with it. I was just following the instructions. if you prefer to delete it that's alright with me; I suspect I can just save the version I'm working on and it will recreate it. Just let me know. --Ludwigs2 04:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read over the instructions again, and I don't think we've made it clear the importance of ensuring the full initiating statements of the request should be completed very promptly, so I will work on improving those instructions. However, if you are not in a position to complete the basics within the next hour or so, I will remove it without prejudice to filing when you have all the information pulled together. Does this seem reasonable? Risker (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me - as I said, if you would like to remove it now that would be ok. if I may, I suggest you change the instructions so that the first step is not to paste in a {{subst:arbreq}} template and then reedit it in the second step. that was where I went wrong. probably means you'll have to change how the template is set up, but…

Sorry for any confusion or inconvenience. --Ludwigs2 04:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to respond on the talk page, but then I would have failed to follow my own advice. But I did want to ask, you do understand that stating an opinion that "the images will never be removed" is not the same thing as taking OWNership of the page, right? Tarc isn't telling you he will ensure the images are never removed. He is telling you that he doesn't think there is any chance consensus will support your view. Resolute 22:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolute, I can't judge Tarc's intention. when he says "The images will not be removed" in that normally gruff voice, it sounds like a declaration of war, not like a personal opinion. All of you are going to have to get used to the idea that consensus can change, and may change, and that might end up with the pictures being removed - the more adamant you all are that it will never happen, the more you present yourselves as violating wp:OWN.

Frankly, I'm tired of being treated by you people like I'm unreasonable. I've been doing my best to be very calm, and a have a clear, reasonable discussion, and I have gotten nothing but a load of hostile bull from the lot of you. I may think you're wrong, but I can recognize the value in your perspective; you damned well ought to get around to treating me the same way. --Ludwigs2 23:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you promise to keep bringing the topic up over and over and over again until you get your way, then yes, people will view you as being unreasonable. We have lots of cute little wiki-terms for that, most of which have been ascribed to you already, so I won't bother again. And just because I don't agree with your perspective does not mean I don't value it. But consider this: The rights of the individual can exist only so far as they don't interfere with the rights of another. You are asserting that a Muslim's religious "right" to not see images of their prophet should override my "right" to view all aspects of an article on a historical individual. That includes such images. Make no mistake on this, removing the images on religious grounds is censorship. Consequently, you are seeking to have your "right" squash mine. That is why you are seeing such a strongly negative reaction from so many people. And that is why people like Tarc are so firm in their opinion that you will not succeed.

I am under no obligation to observe Muslim religious traditions any more than I am obligated to observe Christian, Jewish or pagan. Your argument is that I should have no choice but to follow Muslim belief in this case. That is something that I do not find acceptable. For those that prefer not to see such images, we have provided a means to hide the images for them. My right to free and open information and your right not to see images you don't like are thus both protected. It is a good system, but requires that you accept my right is no less important than your own. Resolute 23:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, see, that is a really offensive thing to say. I did not promise to "keep bringing the topic up over and over and over again until you get your way", I promised to keep patiently working on this until we had some decision that was not the product of page ownership. I'm also not interested in forcing you to observe Muslim tradition; I'm simply suggesting that you stop trying to destroy muslim tradition for no damned reason. but you seem unable to understand that distinction.

If you want to win this battle by calling me names I can't stop you from trying. but don't ask me to respect you for it. --Ludwigs2 23:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot stop someone from seeing offence where none was intended. But I do ask, why is the system of allowing those who do not wish to see the images only for themselves not sufficient to you? It allows a Muslim to observe their own tradition without forcing other to do the same. Where is the flaw in this system? Resolute 23:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The flaw in the system, Resolute, is what I have been saying all along: we are causing offense to an entire religion because of images that ultimately add almost no value to the article. I could see causing offense to an entire religion with reasonable cause; that's an unfortunate necessity of writing an encyclopedia. I simply cannot stomach doing it over trivia. it's unethical and unconscionable. I don't know how anyone can argue that we are free to offend people because the encyclopedia doesn't care about offending people; it's like suggesting that we free to beat anyone we like because the US constitution doesn't guarantee freedom from pain - ridiculous on the face of it. --Ludwigs2 00:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was an impressively absurd comparison given United States law criminalizes assault. A great many people are deeply offended by attempts at censorship on that article. As such, those same people become offended by your own actions. Your viewpoint that nobody should be offended is quaint, and even commendable, but completely unrealistic. But, we come back to my above point: you seek to force one group to be subservient to another. I can't imagine why you are surprised that people view you as unreasonable. At any rate, we're likely to argue around the same circles on this point, so I will take my leave. I hope you enjoy the remainder of your evening. Regards, Resolute 00:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolute, you can only make the assertions you make here by viewing everything through a very peculiar lens. removing unnecessary-and-offensive pictures is not censorship, it's common courtesy. NOTCENSORED does not mean we say to people "We're going to do what you dislike not because we have to, but just because we can"; If you think that's what it mean, you have no conscience. that is deeply problematic behavior. --Ludwigs2 01:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job framing the problem for ArbCom. I doubt they'll take it the way you've put it, but it's great that it's said anyway. B^e——C_ritical 03:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be as fair and complete as possible; not sure how well I succeeded, but I'm glad you approve. As to whether they will take it - out of my control. Anyone who studies history, however, learns that most everything social has to fail a half dozen times before it catches on. if they reject it, it will most assuredly come up to their attention again, and again after that. it's just a matter of time.

If you can think of anything persuasive to add in either direction, throw in your two cents at the request. --Ludwigs2 03:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough editor behavior issues to get it accepted, but you'd be toast :P B^e——C_ritical 03:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B.C., be realistic. I am toast sooner or later, regardless. As well to do what I think is right as not. --Ludwigs2 03:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, that's sad. B^e——C_ritical 05:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ludwigs2: You don't have to be. Please keep the following in mind.[5] And if you want to know why you can't win some arguments on the internet, read this.[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol - I think xkcd is great. But don't worry; knowing that I'm eventually going to get kicked off the project (and knowing why that's going to happen, if not when) is freeing. It allows me to stand up for things I believe in without fear of punishment. Of course, that in itself is one of the things people really can't stand about me… hmm. --Ludwigs2 03:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]