User talk:Ludwigs2

Please refactor your comments

"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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

Comment

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please comment on Talk:Red-Green Alliance (Denmark)

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:Red-Green Alliance (Denmark). 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) 07:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE

Please review a request for Arbitration Enforcement regarding your conduct located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ludwigs2. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, don't let them get to you. We come from different perspectives, but you are now the voice of reason among an unreasonable crowd. Robert Currey talk 22:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL - Story of my life. Why am I always obliged to be the grownup? it truly sucks. --Ludwigs2 22:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes - balance is never easy. I would like to send you a hard-copy of my recent paper on Carlson in the Journal Correlation, if you are interested. It's not available on-line yet and can be reached via [4] Robert Currey talk 23:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I just read your response Ludwigs, and the suspicion you mentioned: I'm afraid I share it. I'm concerned that this action was taken against you because you have maintained rational arguments that cannot be dismissed by the simple accusation of you being a 'deluded believer'. I also empathise with your feeling that speaking up for fairness has caused you nothing but grief. I hope you realise it is appreciated. I wish I could do more myself but at the moment I am coming to terms with a recent bereavement and will only be dipping into WP as time, emotions and energy allows. I hope that the action is dismissed as it should be. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 08:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Zoosexuality

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)

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)

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)

Astrology

I didn't revert you. Former IP did. As for discussing my version. I did. Did you discuss your change before making it? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about the whole 'tag team' crap skeptics pull. irrational people suck.

But yeah, I did. check the talk page. --Ludwigs2 16:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the talk page, and no, you didn't discuss it. At all. And enough of the personal attacks already. You've lost a lot of credibility in my eyes over it already. It's dispicable and ungentlemanly. You are expected to comply with WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY when you edit here, as you've been told countless times. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Re [5], thank you. --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You are banned from astrology for six months, per an AE discussion

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)

"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)

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

I apologise

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)

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)

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)

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)

Just FYI

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

Please comment on Talk:War of the Pacific

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: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)

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)

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.

A barnstar for you!

	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)

NPA request

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)

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)