User talk:Ludwigs2

Note

Ludwigs2, hi, I realize how much fun that you're having, especially with people that are easy to bait. However, some of your posts are getting way far afield from the actual topic of the talkpage (meaning, the related article/essay). So, could I ask you to please ratchet things back a notch, rather than engaging in a battle of wits with the, well, you know? :) For best results, try to ensure that each one of your posts has at least something to do with an improvement of the related page. Thanks, --Elonka 18:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

actually, I'm not having fun (I was getting a bit hot under the collar myself, and I hate that feeling). I'm done with that thread entirely, and with the page as a whole for a few days. no worries. --Ludwigs2 20:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, you may find it therapeutic to go back and refactor or even delete any posts of yours which were focused on editor conduct as opposed to article content. This also has an excellent effect both in that it can de-escalate the dispute, and it makes someone look remarkably mature to show that they can go back and reconsider words said in the heat of the moment. Up to you though!  :) --Elonka 00:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

need a cool-down day or so before I even consider that. at the moment, I don't think anything I wrote was incorrect, and I'm just as likely to compound issues as improve them. best I leave well enough alone. if you or someone else feels a need to remove the discussion, however, I certainly won't object. --Ludwigs2 00:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Despite twice reverting a guideline tag today, you have the cheek to suggest that it is me that must be prevented from edit warring. Check the history of that guideline. I have never edit warred there and have no intention of edit warring. It is not my style. You owe me an apology. Colin°^Talk 22:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, I apologize. I'm not here to fight with you, Colin, but I would like a bit more thought put into this change before it's elevated to guideline status. the move is premature. --Ludwigs2 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Colin°^Talk 22:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Template frames

Hi, is there anyway you can undo your addition to the frames? See how the template used to have no blue frames around the picture, compared to the changes made recently. Now every article that uses the template (couple thousands) have a frame. Also it makes the picture bigger than it is. Benjwong (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I had to revert to the sept 10 edit. You might want to try a sandbox edit before you put that change back in. Benjwong (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the difference btw. Benjwong (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

you reverted the whole change because of the blue frame? I actually kind of liked the blue frame, personally... at any rate, that's easy to fix if that's the only problem. what other issues do you have before I fix and redo? --Ludwigs2 03:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

made the changes (alittle CSS tweaking is all) and added samples on your page above. tell me if that works for you... --Ludwigs2 04:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

poke

Question for you at Wikipedia:Consensus ? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I responded, but I'm not sure how much more attention I want to give it. I'm getting disgusted by the wikipedia process. --Ludwigs2 05:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring in Quackwatch

Please do not simply revert edits. Instead, please make a clear corresponding comment on the talk page discussing your reasoning. Given your edit history, you should know better at this point. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

given your edit history, this is beginning to look like stalking. if I ever want advice from you, I will ask. in the meantime, please cease and desist from leaving meaningless and threatening notes on my talk page.

I have blocked you account for edit warring and disruptive editing. Four reverts on Quackwatch within a short period and all marked as minor. Also, I note the above rather incivil response to another user who was simply calling this to your attention. Please be civil and refrain from edit warring on disputed articles. Note the warning at the top of Talk:Quackwatch. Good day, Vsmith (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ludwigs2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm sorry - I don't know why those edits got marked as minor - that's got to be a twinkle setting that I am unfamiliar with. I'll fix it if I can figure out how (and I won't use the Twinkle undo feature until I do), but it ought to be apparent from my edit summaries that I wasn't intending to make minor edits. further, at least one of those edits was by consensus on the talk page, and the others were all designed to remove a long-term contentious phrase from being added to a reference about a living person. I'll admit I was rude to Ronz, above, but that's just because I don't really want him leaving messages on my talk page. there is too much negative history there to make his advice meaningful. If you think I need to be blocked for rudeness, that's fine, because I admit (for reasons of personal stress) that I have had a short temper lately. but if that's the case, I'd ask you to change the stated reasons to reflect the actual cause. I don't want to be blocked for something that I'm really not guilty of.

Decline reason:

The real issue here is not the fact that you checked the "minor edit" box when making reverts (and by the way, that can be disabled in your preferences). The issue is that you engaged in yet another edit war. Also, judging by your block log you clearly have not learned from your previous blocks an prior unblocks only resulted in more edit waring. for this reason your request is denied. — Tiptoety ^talk 05:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have contacted the blocking admin to get his opinion on lifting your block early. Please await his response. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What does it matter if they're marked minor? This was edit warring, and Ludwigs should remained blocked. In fact, with his/her history of blocks, shouldn't this be lengthened to an appropriate length? Maybe one month? Ludwigs' continued edit-warring across all types of articles and policy pages should be a priori evidence for a very long block, if not an indefinite block. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a close look at his block log, promises resulted in a block lift before - so I'm a bit skeptical of that. As for twinkle, I know nothing of how it works or what the problem may have been. However, he was aware of a problem and had previously apologized for marking changes as minor. The incivil edit summary here in which he castigates a user for marking a truly minor comma removal as a minor edit while marking his revert as minor was totally uncalled for. See User_talk:ElKevbo#Quackwatch. He was well aware of the past editing problems on quackwatch and yet chose to edit war there. Now, if admin consensus is to shorten or lift the block - then ok, but I don't feel that would send the right message here. Vsmith (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement that Ludwigs2 was making excessive use of the "revert" button at the Quackwatch article. It would have been better to try and find a compromise. That said, however, I would like to propose that a block may be more than is needed here, and there may be a better-crafted solution. Ludwigs2 has done good work on other articles, and it just seems to be the Quackwatch article that is the current flashpoint. The article is within the scope of an arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. As such, any uninvolved administrator has the authority to impose bans here, as well as blocks. What I would recommend, is that Ludwigs2 be banned for one week from editing the Quackwatch article. That way he could still participate at the talkpage, and continue to edit other articles in the meantime. What do other admins think? --Elonka 06:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support that. Tiptoety ^talk 15:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If the "excessive" reverts were the only issue, I would agree. However, considering the block history, the apparent misuse of twinkle after he was aware of a problem, and the incivil comments pointed out above all seem to be a bit more serious and need broader remedies. Vsmith (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I agree with Vsmith. The edit wars and the uncivil comments seem to me to be spread out more lately. I would suggest to Ludwig2 to not take things so serious as to get himself upset by so many like he has at Quackwatch, WP:Tag teams and so forth. He has gotten angry with a few editors lately and needs to remember to talk about the edits not the editors. When I allow myself to get upset with others I take a break and go somewhere else to work or just take a break from the project completely until I calm down. I think this has worked well for me to remain civil with others. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am confused

I do not understand your removal of three references I recently added to the article. If you don't mind, can I revert your edit. What is your objection to the references and text I added. Thanks. QuackGuru 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.--Elonka 04:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)