User talk:Ludwigs2

ygm

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. 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) 09:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Fringe Theories

I agree with everything you wrote, and appreciate it.

in my own comment however, I meant to be clear that there was no call to bring "truth" into this, I hope I was clear.

I was also trying to forward some concrete suggestions. I would very much like to know whether you think they are or are not constructive. Thanks,Slrubenstein | Talk 17:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you make good points, and I agree with what you say, but I've personally come to think that that the wp:RS approach is a mistake. What inevitably happens is that RS discussions lead us back to a discussion of 'truth' (usually by asserting that some sources are mainstream and therefore true while others are false) and that falls right back into ontological warfare. It would be better than what we have, mind you, and if it comes down to compromise I'll be backing your approach. But rather than finish that thought here, let me do it in response to QfK over at V.

File:Question mark - inverted, color.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Question mark - inverted, color.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed

In a recent exchange on the Reiki talk page, you called me "grasshopper." Leaving aside that I may be older than you, that I've been around WP longer than you, and so on... I do value beginner's mind. That thread we engaged in is active once more. As I said I would, I contributed what I thought was a balanced statement about the current state of research on Reiki. I stayed very close to the sources and I balanced the fact that they haven't verified the mechanism by which it works with the fact that some very notable organizations temper their statements about "no verifiable data" with the qualifier "yet." I put my version up on the talk page. When, after several days no one disputed it, I added it to the article. Yobol reverted me and seems to be trying to insert his POV. OK, so assuming I'm the grasshopper. What does one do? Sunray (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the grasshopper thing, that was a joke. as to the specific problem, I suggest you revert any changes Yobol made to the version before your post, then open a new thread noting that you've restored the passage to its original version and for some discussion. if no discussion happens, reassert your version after 24 hours.

I've been busy with other things, but I'll take a look in on the page this evening. --Ludwigs2 16:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had done approximately what you suggest. It is somewhat more complicated than that. I am in "discussion" with Yobol and Ronz on the talk page here. Sage comments would be most welcome. Sunray (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I get the "grasshopper" reference (took me awhile). Yes, humorous, but in in a rueful sense. Sunray (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. N^oformation ^Talk 01:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI

When Robert posted in that thread he doubled the size of ANI, I just fixed it but I had to delete some of the comments in the thread, do you mind going back to the last diff and pulling out what you wrote and reposting it? There are a number of comments that got cut as some people were posting to the first version of the thread in the middle of the page while others posted at the second at the bottom. N^oformation ^Talk 02:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

ugh, a mess. ok, I'll see what I can do. --Ludwigs2 02:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I love the wisdom of the Serenity Prayer. I'm an atheist so I'll rephrase it in a secular manner:

“ May I have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.

”

Based on the comments at ANI, you've arguing for the removal of those images for 3 weeks. Assuming that's true, how many people at the beginning of the discussion have since changed their minds? Do you think that continuing is likely to change anyone's mind? Are you anywhere close to your arguments becoming consensus?
On a perhaps somewhat related note, I read the following article a couple weeks ago and found it fascinating:
The Backfire Effect
You might enjoy it as well. I'm not sure it really applies to this particular situation, but it's a great read and I highly recommend it. Cheers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Quest: you could as easily make this same comment to the people on the other side of the dispute. Since I have a very good argument, and they don't, I'm not sure why you think I should be the one to leave the discussion.

I have no problem sitting on that page rehashing issues until we make progress, one way or another. I really don't care about about any backfire, and I don't think it's wise to give into foolishness, and I'm sure you can find better quotes than the AA slogan. --Ludwigs2 17:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm telling you because I don't want to see you banned or blocked again, and that's exactly what's going to happen if you continue on this path. Believe it or not, I'm trying to help you. But that's fine, I said what I wanted to say and I won't belabor the point. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Honestly, I do. unfortunately, I have never been the type to back away from correct behavior out of fear. It's just not in my nature. --Ludwigs2 17:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My point isn't about fear; it's about practicality. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If your point is about practicality, make an argument about practicality; don't invoke threats of punishment. Unless you're suggesting that irrational punishment is such a commonplace on wikipedia that avoiding it is merely a matter of practicality? that would be a sad state of affairs… --Ludwigs2 18:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Dude, I didn't threaten you. I did make an argument about practicticality in my first post.[1] You responded by saying I could have just as easily posted my first comment to the other editors.[2] So I explained why I posted it to yours: I don't want to see you blocked or banned.[3] If I wanted to see you blacked or banned, I'd be at ANI supporting the topic ban proposal. But am I? No. I thought that maybe I could help. Obviously, I haven't. I'm sorry for having bothered you. Feel free to delete this thread from your talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Quest - we're talking past each other. I didn't suggest you threatened me, but the argument "Don't do what you think is right because you might get in trouble for it" doesn't mean anything to me. literally: I view it as a nonsensical non-sequitor. I'm glad you don't want to see me blocked or banned (I have enough editors flying that banner for a lifetime). I appreciate and understand your concern, and trust me I will do what I can to try to avoid getting blocked or banned. But there are principles which I will not sacrifice, otherwise I will no longer consider it worthwhile to work on the encyclopedia. I hope you understand. --Ludwigs2 19:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Who care if anybody is offended by images of Muhammad. Catholics, Orthodox, Buddists, Islamists, Protestants, Lutherans, Athiests, Agnostics, Anglicans, Communists, etc etc. Honestly, big deal -- boo hoo. The images are there -- Get over it. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW

FWIW and if you haven't already read it, I rescinded my support of your topic ban. As I said in the thread, I think you're a pretty awesome editor (especially in your handling of Men's rights, but that's just the most recent) and don't want to see you banned from the article. I'm asking you to AGF on my part - as well as the other editors on the page - that we have read and considered your points but that we simply do not agree with you. I know you don't agree with us - and that's ok. Clearly this is something that needs to be decided policy wise, my only argument is that until policy changes, we follow it the way that it's written. Would you please reconsider your attitude at the page as well as your argument regarding religious offense? If you do and humbly agree on AN/I, I think that most of those supports would be willing to reconsider as well. I think progress can be made towards a compromise but the all or nothing approach will not work. Thanks for reading. N^oformation ^Talk 23:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Something I forgot to bring up. Would you be willing to move this discussion to WP:NOTCENSORED for the sake of gaining a more community wide consensus there regarding the way the policy is written? N^oformation ^Talk 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've never had the 'all or nothing approach' (I seemed to have been thoroughly slimed in that regard; par for the course). But yes, I'll open up a policy RfC on it over there; we'll see what happens. I do agree with you that the entire discussion at Muhammad has reached the wp:DEADHORSE stage; we'll just have to disagree about who's doing the whipping. --Ludwigs2 23:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if I mischaracterized your approach. I'm glad that you're willing to open an RfC over there, please let me know if you'd like any help or input. You might want to mention this on AN/I and perhaps we can put the talk page mess behind all of us. Thanks. N^oformation ^Talk 23:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll do that now. --Ludwigs2 00:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mexico City

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mexico City. 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) 10:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Seen this?

Re your comment to Wikkid at Jimbo's, have you seen WP:Offensive material. It doesn't cover religious offensiveness,,, yet. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"making up cheap lies"

Stop that. You've made it clear that you consider objections based on religious beliefs to be something that should be considered during deciding whether an image should be placed in an article. I'm not "making up cheap lies" when I point that out. It may not be the only motivating factor you have, but it is certainly something you desire and something that I consider to be fundamentally wrong.—Kww(talk) 23:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You misrepresent my intentions and motivations (which you shouldn't be talking about in the first place under wp:NPA). You don't know what I desire. You refuse to give me any credit that I might be making a marginally reasonable point. how would you like me to frame all that?

They are cheap lies. maybe you believe them (in which case they are cheap lies you are telling yourself, rather than cheap lies you're telling to others), but from my perspective there's not a whole lot of difference. keep your grubby little fingers out of my psyche, and deal with what I am saying to you as I say it (not filtered through the twists and turns of your own perspective). --Ludwigs2 23:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I misrepresented nothing at all. Or do you care to join me in the statement that Islamic beliefs are irrelevant to the decision making process? You can't have it both ways: either religious beliefs are relevant to Wikipedia's editorial policies, or they aren't. I maintain they aren't, but you clearly maintain they are: if you didn't believe that, you wouldn't even consider the images of Mohammed to be controversial.—Kww(talk) 23:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've answered you on the talk page. you are casting my perspective as religious when the arguments I make have to do with NPOV and common sense. As I have said endless amounts of times I don't think we should offend anyone without a good encyclopedic reason. I've said that to you 'specifically' at least a handful of times, and the fact that you still haven't gotten it is why I say that you are lying. Maybe you have a better explanation about how I can say 'X' to you repeatedly and see that you still say I said 'Y'? If so, I'd like to hear it, because I don't like to think that you are lying intentionally. but you are surely not telling the truth. --Ludwigs2 23:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that you, yourself, were religious. I said that you wanted to "incorporate religious sensitivity in Wikipedia editorial policy". What are you doing when you worry about offending Muslims if you aren't "incorporat[ing] religious sensitivity" in your decision making process? If you want the rest of us to also worry about offending Muslims, what are doing besides attempting to "incorporate religious sensitivity in Wikipedia editorial policy"? As I've said, once I've determined that someone's objection is religious in nature, I ignore it and encourage everyone else to do the same. The only part where I even come close to agreeing with you is that I don't think pages meant to attack religious beliefs have a place on Wikipedia, either, but that issue hasn't even come up.—Kww(talk) 00:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And AGAIN you are interpreting what I said in religious terms. YOU are the one with religious issue here, not me.

I want you to stop for one second: forget that you've ever heard the term religion, ever been exposed to a religious concept, ever experienced a dispute on a religion article on Wikipedia. Forget all that, and consider this statement: "We should not offend anyone on wikipedia without a good encyclopedic reason for doing so." You tell me what's wrong with that statement from the perspective of Wikipedia's purpose, without referring to religion or any other specific context. If you cannot oppose it as a general rule, but need to invoke religion to make your opposition to it make sense, then that ought to clue you in that you are not as secularly neutral as you might believe. --Ludwigs2 01:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your statement. People are irrational in many ways, and attempting not to offend anyone is both unachievable and undesirable.—Kww(talk) 05:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not ask for your 'opinion' Kww; I asked you to tell me what's wrong with the statement from the perspective of Wikipedia. If you cannot justify your position in terms of the principles and goals of the project, then it's entirely possible that you are the one who acting out of an irrational belief. --Ludwigs2 14:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's wrong for an encyclopedia to incorporate irrational perspectives in its editorial process. Don't misunderstand me: when I say the beliefs of three tribesmen and those of a billion Muslims and those of billions of Buddhists, Christians, and Jews are the equivalent, I'm not elevating the perspective of the three tribesmen. None of these perspectives are worth considering in the editorial policies of an encyclopedia, and its harmful to an encyclopedia to worry about offending any of them. Any policy change which would make offending people on this kind of basis subject images to additional scrutiny (such as "is it incidental or not?") is harmful.—Kww(talk) 14:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Kww: All of these perspectives are perfectly worthy of being used in the editorial process - NPOV is absolutely, unquestionably, unambiguously clear on that point. They may not end up being used in articles, but refusing to allow them to be considered is a violation of core policy. This is what I have been saying all along: we have to take such perspectives into consideration and weigh their value against other interests.

Note what you are doing: you are starting with well-defined religious/cultural proscription, translating that into a 'personal sensibility', translating that into an 'irrational perspective', and then trying to dismiss it as unworthy of consideration. I submit that your logic is irrational here: how can a cultural proscription be equated with a personal desire? why should personal desires be considered always irrational? This is not good reasoning. --Ludwigs2 15:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I never talked about sensibilities, Ludwigs2. Check your wording. Nits aside, religion is irrational, virtually by definition, and nothing about NPOV requires us to consider irrational perspectives.—Kww(talk) 16:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Will you please just shut the fuck up. In case you haven't noticed, a good number of editors have now chimed in in support of the same position you are espousing. Your incessant whining on and on and on about the motives, intentions, character and god knows what of those who hold a different view is making so mush noise that it's impossible, or at least very unpleasant trying, to make any progress or find common ground.

Learn to control yourself. You're not the only one here trying to improve the project. All of those editors you delight in belittling and baiting are here for the same purpose. None of those I know who oppose your position are doing it for any other reason than that they love this project and they are not motivated by a hatred of Islam.

Grow up. Ignore the baiting. Don't engage in it. If you keep this discussion of other editors going I swear I'll swing round and lead the pitchfork charge. I'm sick of it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)