User talk:Ludwigs2

missed your comment

sorry, I missed your comment, here: Template_talk:Hidden_archive_top#nominated_for_deletion. I was surprised by the whole thing as I think the discusssion was closed as I was typing. Then when I checked to see when it was opened, I was really irritated. They should have a minimum time before a deletion discussion is allowed to be closed. stmrlbs|talk 01:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

well, you could reopen the deletion discussion with a very clear statement that the last one was too short to be meaningful. do you think that would be useful? --Ludwigs2 02:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Forum-shopping

Thanks for your tweak - I think that captures it nicely. ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Medicine/Chiropractic/SPOV

Hey Ludgwigs, re: your comment that these issues have been discussed before, can you point me to some of those discussions? I know that Chiropractic had its own Arbcom case and I've read through it (as well as reams of talk page history), but I can't find much discussion about MEDRS in conjunction with ASF except from those who want them to work in lockstep. Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which comment you're referring to. the GEV section has frequently been challenged (look at the talk pages of NPOV and NPOV/FAQ), the issues in general come up all the time here and there. can you be more specific? --Ludwigs2 17:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned that issues about how NPOV applies to medical articles has been discussed before. I assume some of that happened during the Chiropractic ArbCom case. Are there other places I should look? Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Trading card game

We're wrapping up the democratic rules approval process. Please reveiw Wikipedia:Trading card game/Action plan/Phase 1:Rules/Rules approval‎ and review the ruleset. If no changes are made to it within 7 days, then we will proceed next week with the card nomination and approval process.

If you are no longer interested in helping out with the project, please remove your name from the participants list.

Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to make substantial changes to NPOV without consensus

For consistency with NPOV, I think you need to first explain your deletion of ASF and major rewrite to NPOV against Wikipedia's consensus. You continuously edit without consensus and delete long established parts of policy.[1][2][3] Do you understand it is a big deal when editors are concerned you are forcing changes to policy that they disagree with, while you are not adhering to the advice of WP:PG#Substantive changes.[4][5][6] You have exported your disagreement with long term NPOV to V policy, and refuse to abide by consensus at NPOV. You wrote in part: "such as the fact/opinion distinction, which I disapprove of". You are personally against the intent of long established ASF when you admitted you disapprove of the fact/opinion distinction. Is it your aim to consistently remove ASF? QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It is my aim to improve policy so that it is fair, balanced, useful, and (most importantly) reflective of the principles that are required for constructing a good encyclopedia. what is your aim? --Ludwigs2 23:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What is my aim? I approve of ASF/NPOV. According to your previous comment you disapprove of the fact/opinion distinction and you decided to remove what you disapproved of. Why do you disapprove of ASF/NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I disapprove of ASF (as I have already said numerous times in discussion), because it's very misleading, subject to a lot of misinterpretation, constantly argued over, and philosophically unsupportable. It's not simple, it's simple-minded, and it gets in the way far more than it helps. --Ludwigs2 16:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The current version is vague and is very misleading. It does not even have the example of an inline qualifier. You deleted the first sentence of ASF that was a summary of the whole section. It was not misleading to explain when there is no serious dispute for a non-controversial statement the text can be asserted without attribution in the text. And when there is a serious disagreement or expressed a value judgement the text can be attributed in the text. You deleted a very clear version and replaced it with confusing, hard to follow text because you are against ASF. You have not explained what was misleading about the previous version. The inline qualifier example made it simple to follow. Do you believe attribution in the text is appropriate when an editor diagrees with a non-controversial statement or when the disagreement is with reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

QuackGuru: you have said this same thing (literally) numerous times already. No one agrees with you. You can continue to repeat it, endlessly and ever, but no one is likely to agree with you the next 50 times you say it, because no one has agreed with you the last 50 times you said it. Why you don't seem to recognize that no one agrees with your perspective is a mystery to me, but not a mystery that I am all that interested in understanding. One of these days (I hope) you will understand that there are other forms of communication aside from making declarations about 'the truth' and telling people that they are wrong. why don't we take this conversation up again when that day comes? --Ludwigs2 17:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not about 'truth'. This is about asserting the text versus attribution in the text. You reverted another editor who disagrees with you and you have not adequately explained your reason for removing the distinction of fact/opinion when it explained when to assert the text and when not to assert the text. Why do you think NPOV should not explain when to assert non-controversial statements and when to attribute in the text controversial statements. Why did you delete the inline qualifier examples when the inline qualifiers made the "A simple formulation" much clearer. I thought you wanted NPOV to be useful. The fact/opinion distinction is useful to include in NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're just repeating yourself. this is the tenth or twentieth time that you have claimed I "have not adequately explained [my] reason", and every time you've said that I've explained it again, and every time I explain it you claim (again) that I haven't. Go back and read one of the other twenty times I've explained it; don't post to my talk page again until you have, and can post diffs to my explanations to prove that you have. --Ludwigs2 18:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP concerns

My concerns in [7]:

• It's all your opinion.
• Besides applying to all Wikipedia pages, WP:BLP also states, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
• "but they don't seem to realize or acknowledge the distinction" Again, your opinion. Ironically, it applies to most of the arguments for getting rid of the Quackwatch ref.
• "he's more concerned with the opinion-mongering side of that equation (the 'informing people' bit) than he is with the actual analytic process of distinguishing good practices from bad." Pure speculation on your part. This is a pattern.
• "but the people inclined to do that kind of thing (Barrett being no exception) have a horrible tendency to overindulge in questionable critiques" Ditto for this and the rest of the paragraph.

In other words, the entire first paragraph is a BLP vio. --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard page, Ronz, not an article, and the purpose of these statements is to evaluate Barrett as a source. You are welcome to offer counter-arguments if you like, but you cannot silence all discussion of Barrett as a source by using BLP. Keep in mind that if you continue arguing that Barrett cannot be discussed as a source per BLP, then I will begin arguing that Barrett cannot be used as a source per wp:RS and wp:V - a source which cannot be discussed cannot be verified, and therefore can never be considered reliable under policy. Is that where you want this to go? --Ludwigs2 01:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"This is a noticeboard page" BLP still applies, right?

"you cannot silence all discussion of Barrett as a source by using BLP" Thankfully, no one is doing any such thing. Can we get back to the matter at hand? --Ronz (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

--Ludwigs2 02:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I don't know if you saw it but we already have a wp:RS Noticeboard thread going on regarding Barrett (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F).--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. But really, there might be too many discussions on this going on. it's better to have things centralized in one location, to keep confusion down. --Ludwigs2 17:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to restore disputed BLP content and note it on BLPN [8]. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess you get the final word. Good for you! [9] --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I do, maybe I don't: that will be decided at BLP/N. however, I don't see anything in this passage that's troubling enough to call for immediate removal as a clear BLP problem, and I see no reason to edit war over it. let the discussion play out - if it's decided that it really is a BLP issue, then we can remove the passage at that time. In the meantime, it strikes me as a valid concern about Barrett as a source, so it should stay.

Incidentally, if there is a particular phrase or wording in that passage that you think is particularly troubling, I'm happy to remove it in a way that doesn't otherwise disturb the point being made. I'm not insensitive to the BLP issue, I just don't want the sourcing argument in its entirety suppressed. --Ludwigs2 16:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not insensitive to the BLP issue" I see no evidence of that.

"I just don't want the sourcing argument in its entirety suppressed." Strawman. There's been a massive discussion on two noticeboards. Suppressed? Just the opposite. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what to say, Ronz. Reason is a harsh mistress, but she's mine, and I don't cheat on her. if you choose to live in a fishbowl you may do so, but any distortions you see are most likely refractions incurred where reality meets the edges of your worldview. enough said? --Ludwigs2 17:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said: strawman. --Ronz (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's not a strawman. more like a fishman - possibly aquaman? --Ludwigs2 03:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Weston Price discussions

I must say thanks for how you're handling these discussions, especially with SA involved. While they could be going much better, I expected much worse based upon similar, past discussions between the two of you. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, my early 'disagreements' with SA were more in the nature of misunderstandings. I've gotten a better grasp on the wikipedia process over time, and he seems to have mellowed a bit. There's still a core disagreement about where the median lies on skeptic/pseudoscience debates (and that will probably always exist), but we seem to have gotten around to a place where we can discuss it rationally. One must appreciate blessings, large and small. --Ludwigs2 20:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing text

Please don't make assumptions about others, and don't make threats based upon assumptions. You're wrong to make such assumptions, and your assumptions are wrong. [10]

What wikitext did I muck up? [11] --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if I made a wrong presumption, but your hastiness to close the subject before ArbCom does so officially (combined with the mucked up wikitext and the tone of your language) spoke to me of anger, or at least some over-strong emotion. As always, I can deal with disagreement, and I don't mind being wrong or losing a point where I deserve to lose a point, but petty actions (like hiding or deleting text peremptorily or ostentatiously failing to follow basic logic) irk me. I'm used to academic discussions, where people respect reason and don't give in to every little impulse to score an emotional victory, and I dislike slogging through more colorful discourse.

you placed the {{collapse top}} before a section break and the {{collapse bottom}} after it, which meant that removing it required editing two sections. not difficult for someone who knows the template, but annoying, and it might have driven a newb to distraction trying to figure it out. --Ludwigs2 03:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology.

Doh! Good point on placing it after the section break. Placing it after allows the TOC to work. I've made that mistake a few times I'm afraid. --Ronz (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Marking your ArbCom requests

I should have waited before marking your requests as denied. Apologies.

I feel it should be collapsed on BLPN because it's far off topic. Maybe after it's resolved, someone else will do so. --Ronz (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

well, I only put in on BLPN because I mentioned that in the case and I knew there were some participants there. But I can see your point, and as a gesture of good will I'll go ahead and collapse that one on my own (marked as 'probably denied'). as soon as the case gets denied, feel free to collapse the other and change the label on this one. --Ludwigs2 03:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We could have saved ourselves a week of debate by moving Barrett's criticism to the Foundation article where it really belongs. I've worked on a lot of articles, and I've never seen such a fuss made over a tiny spec in one article. It's as though we were insulting someone's mother or something. Maybe we should remove the criticism section altogether and stick Barrett in a See also section. Then there would be no BLP issue at all. I can't wait till this is over, because I don't get my jollies over these preceedings like some folks must. I'm just here to edit articles. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 04:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

These issues have a very, very long history (going back before I started here - they reached an ArbCom head in 2006, so they must have been going on for a couple of years before that. still a lot of frayed nerves over it all. Just remember to take a deep breath and remember that it's just the ghost of disputes past haunting the site, not anything to do with you personally.

I don't think that Barrett should be removed (he's clearly notable, and clearly represents a particular POV that should be included). I just feel sometimes that he's been totemized, and I'd like to bring him back down to earth. but that will take time. --Ludwigs2 04:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(N/e) --Ludwigs2 04:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

All I can say is, that this is a blip in the static around here. You want to see real BLP stuff going on, go to Rush Limbaugh and witness what goes on, on that talk page. If this little article can generate this much fuss on three noticeboards and ArbCon, then applying the exact same fuss about the Limbaugh article should get an entire WP server of its own. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 04:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Communist terrorism

I think you'll need more than garden shears to prune that article. More like napalm and tactical nuclear weapons. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol - you obviously haven't seen me wield garden shears. but, yeah... someone's put a lot of effort into mucking up that article. --Ludwigs2 19:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

But... but... we need more explosions! Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

hmmmmmm... you're beginning to sound a bit like one of those 'communist terrorists'. Are you now or have you ever been associated with anyone who has ever in casual conversation referred to communism, socialism, Marx, trade unions, welfare, community service, Barack Obama, or (heaven forbid) "Lincoln Logs"? Place your right hand on the computer display and swear by The Wiki that your answers are true and complete to the best of your knowledge. --Ludwigs2 19:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Will placing my hand on my coffee mug work? Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 05:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

BLPN

Re [12]: Can you back way off, be concise, stick to the topic at hand, avoid making assumptions and comments about others, and generally follow the behavioral guidelines? If so, do so now. --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, pardon me for being blunt, but here's the way I see it:

1. You asked a question
2. I gave a detailed and thoughtful response
3. You ignored that response, then (two or three posts later...)
4. You posed the same question to another editor who is more emotionally involved and less experienced than I am

That does not strike me as the behavior of someone who is looking to resolve a problem, that strikes me as the behavior of someone who is looking to protract a problem.

I'm not going to 'back way off' when the only conceivable result of that is to allow greater latitude for the obfuscation of the issue. If you prefer, I will stop trying to lighten things through humor. That wouldn't mean that I'd 'back off', it would mean that I would critique your logical and rhetorical errors with systematic precision (as above). This is supposed to be a reasoned debate, and while I'd prefer to be pleasant about it being reasoned, I will insist on it being reasoned. If you're taking this conversation seriously, you should not be trying to evade difficult points; you should give an effective response to them, or you should acknowledge that you can't. that's what serious conversations are designed to accomplish.

Frankly I get a bit offended when I enter into a conversation with a complete acceptance that I might discover that I'm wrong, but find that that kind of honesty is not reciprocated by others. I will treat you with respect and civility, but that does not extend to indulging an unwillingness to face reason as it arises. --Ludwigs2 23:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as that you're unable to follow Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines. When you change your mind, let others know. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz has been posting the same stuff on my talk page. Ronz is bending WP:AGF beyond its bounds by WP:POT when he accused me of being drunk. Ronz breaks the rules further by speaking in terms of "our" in order to emit the air of authority which he doesn't possess. It implies a feeling of being a Vested Contributor and pseudo-administrator. It's a valid sign of WP:BULLYING, also against the rules. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 00:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Founders, a word of advice: don't get up in arms about it. Ronz is a generally good editor, but when he gets a bee in his bonnet (which he does about certain issues) he can lose perspective. The less you react to his behavior, the more likely he is to remember correct editing practices and get back in the flow of things. save the strong language for if and when he really steps over the line. --Ludwigs2 00:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine Ludwig, maybe you haven't received enough personal harassment and threats yet. Enjoy your dealings with this one; never met one like him in all the years I've been here. Over and out. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 00:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've refactored my question and await an answer. --Ronz (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've explained myself above, and see no reason for any further action. If you do not follow the principles of rational discourse, I will call you on it. do you have a problem with that? --Ludwigs2 00:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You've not addressed my concerns:

• Can you be concise?
• Can you stick to the topic at hand?
• Can you avoid making assumptions and comments about others?
• Can you generally follow the behavioral guidelines?

--Ronz (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, you seem to be under the impression that I need to justify my behavior to you. I don't. I've been being very tolerant thus far, but your behavior is bordering on user space harassment. please read that policy. --Ludwigs2 02:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're not interested in answering, just say it. --Ronz (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there someone you trust to help me work with you? --Ronz (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

heavens... Ronz - I have no problem working with you just as you are. Just keep in mind that you're not dealing with a starry-eyed newb, and measure your behavior accordingly, and we'll get along fine. --Ludwigs2 04:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It was worth a try. --Ronz (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What was worth a try? that part where you tried to bully me, or the whole BLP lie that you're running about Barrett? You have no grounds to carry this point on logic, and I'm not stupid enough to get utterly distracted by your laundry list of policy red herrings, so maybe it's time you sat up straight and tried a different (more honest) approach. how does that sound? --Ludwigs2 15:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It was worth a try looking for ways to work with you. Trying to discuss the matter directly with you doesn't appear to work. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

When in fact you actually try to look for ways to work with me, I'll be open to that. However, to date you have:

• warned me multiple times about mythical BLP issues
• warned me multiple times about mythical civility issues
• Tried to browbeat me by making unjustified assertions about my behavior
• And worst, evaded every effort I have made to have a reasoned discussion with you.

So, are you going actually try to work with me now, or are you going to continue in this vein until I'm forced to complain about you at ANI?

I'll continue to look for other approaches as needed. You appear to be avoiding interacting with me outside your talk page, which I appreciate.

If you'd like to work on settling any of the bulleted items you listed above, let me know. Otherwise, you probably should take them to ANI now. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding you? why should I need to avoid you when you're posting four or five messages in my userspace per day? I've just been occupied elsewhere, so I haven't been back to the BLP or FRINGE noticeboards in a day or so. but don't worry, I'll be back.

With respect to my bulleted points - I don't much care. I'm perfectly capable of ignoring you when you step out of line, on wp:AGF grounds. if you keep it up enough that it starts to truly annoy me then I will take you to ANI for harassment, but I don't see the need to do that right at this moment. getting close, mind you, but we're not there yet. I am mostly concerned about getting you to respond properly to reasoned argument. I mean, you don't have to if you don't want to - I'm in a position where I can legitimately adjust the way Barrett is used in articles (since you've offered no substantive counterargument to the things I've said), and while it would be nice to reach some kind of consensus with you on the matter I'm happy going ahead with it over your objections based on the weight of reason. I am confident that I can win any sourcing dispute if it comes to that. so it's really just a matter of how you decide you want to play this issue out - stubbornly resistant to the end, or working towards some kind of effective consensus? up to you. --Ludwigs2 18:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Purposely avoiding me or not, I appreciate it.

I think it would be helpful to try to settle the bulleted points. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What's to settle?

1. You are aware (I assume) that you templated me about BLP issues - unpleasant per wp:DNTTR.
2. You are aware (I assume) that multiple editors (independent and not) have told you that there is no credible BLP issue here, and yet continued to warn me about it.
3. You are aware (I assume) that you've been warning me about civility issues (I don't know whether you really believe they exist, but you have presented no real evidence of them).
4. You are aware (I assume) that you have been making multiple posts to my talk page that badger me about obvious and common sense editing practices.
5. You are aware (I assume) that you are failing to respond to reasoned points that dispute your position.
6. You are aware (I assume) that you are not an administrator, and thus have no real cause to be warning me about anything.

If in fact you are aware of all these points, then you have it in your power to improve your behavior. If you are not aware (or contest) any of these points, please tell me which so we can discuss it in greater detail. all I really care about is that you (eventually) stop. If you have some real concern about the way I interact with you, we can discuss that as well. I'm amenable to most things, so long as you don't insist on anything that would require me to compromise the integrity of the discussion. --Ludwigs2 18:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

1 Sorry that you find templates unpleasant. I don't agree with the essay. I added the templates in good faith.

2 The matter is still under discussion at BLPN. If you'd like to go into details here, we can do so.

3 I'm sorry if I've done so. I'm usually very good at adding diffs to any such concerns. Could you provide a diff to the warning(s)?

4 If you find something "badgering" or otherwise problematic, I'm always happy to refactor. If you'll provide diffs, I'll do so now.

5 The matter is still under discussion at BLPN.

6 Let's see how we progress on the other concerns first, since this applies to them all. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, you misunderstood the purpose of my previous post. Whether or not you were aware of these matters before hand, you are now clearly (since you responded to the post) aware that I consider them problematic behaviors, and that you should not engage in them (on my talk page, at least). If you continue to do so, I will have a clear and unambiguous case for harassment, which is all I was really looking for by continuing this conversation. Please be respectful from this point on. --Ludwigs2 19:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We're clear: You don't want to discuss the matters.

Can we work some compromise or truce? --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? As I said, I don't see a problem here, aside from the fact that you're over-posting to my talk page. why don't you tell me what you need? --Ludwigs2 20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have anything in mind, yet. I've searched for options on how to work with you, and the outcome is that you don't want to discuss matters. That you're willing to at least entertain a compromise or truce is a bit more hopeful. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)