User talk:Ludwigs2

Internet homicide

I noticed that you commented at the AfD for this article, and did not like the name -- and you seemed to think the piece was only about serial killers, which it is not. The subject is literally internet-facilitated homicide, of which serial killings form only a small part. As such, it is a parallel article to the entire crime-by-contact-venue series of articles, such as Internet suicide, Internet crime, Internet terrorism, Cyber crime, Lonely hearts killer, Vehicular homicide, and Online predator.

Perhaps, to be consistent with the above list, Lonely hearts killer should be renamed Lonely hearts homicide -- but that term, like Serial killer and Spree killer, is a one of long standing in the media.

Cordially, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. what I'm questioning is the 'internet' part of all this. even in your list above, which is supposed to be 'crime-by-contact-venue series', all but two of the venues are internet related, and of the exceptions one might be internet related. and note the difference between all the 'internet' items and 'vehicular homicide'. vehicular homicide means using a car to kill someone; if someone used a car to drive around and look for someone to kill, that certainly wouldn't be considered vehicular homicide. and yet we reverse that logic for the internet. no one ever killed anyone with the internet itself.

the whole page is playing off cyber-fear (the common presumption that the internet is a bad and dangerous place, filled with predators). this last guy (markoff) was fairly tame as murderers go: he killed one person and attacked a couple of others. if he had found his victims some other way he'd never have been more than local news. but because he used the internet, the mass media can tap into all sort of new avenues of paranoia and feed it to us with a spoon to boost their ratings. should wikipedia be doing the same thing? the internet thing is really meaningless, and the article just encourages OR as people try to make a thin, meaningless set of connections mean more than it does. --Ludwigs2 07:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's an element of fear-mongering to the media's and crime writers' coverage of these killers. That's not a reason not to have an article on the subject, though; instead that's a good reason to have a source in the area noting that, if there is one. You seem to acknowledge that his use of the internet makes him notable to the media, you're just saying that it shouldn't make someone notable - I agree, nevertheless, he perhaps unfortunately is. I agree "internet homicide" doesn't follow the same construction as "vehicular homicide." It wasn't a wikipedian that coined it, though (and how often does English uniformly apply the same construction?). Likewise, Wikipedia isn't prohibited from having articles about meaningless things; I wouldn't go so far as to call it meaningless, but it doesn't seem to be of cosmic significance, true. Where is the original research, though, when these killers in fiction and fact are repeatedly being named "internet killers" or some variation thereon, and the repeated use of the internet to select victims has been noted by writers? Шизомби (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as a question about meaningfulness. people make whatever meanings they want to make out of things, c'est la vie. I see this as a question of knowledge structures. the information in a well-formed article should be coherent and bounded, otherwise the article really doesn't have a topic. the problem with the 'internet killer/homicide' thing is that it's really an artistic motif masquerading as a fact (a technological equivalent of Freddie Kruger, or vampires, or Grendel, or any other 'Beast-who-lurks-in-the-dark' tale), and artistic motifs are mostly interested in effect, and hence have very few boundaries. I mean, the comparison with vehicular manslaughter is right on point. 'Vehicular manslaughter' means using a vehicle to kill someone, and it has a very clear, unambiguous set of criteria for inclusion and exclusion. 'Internet killer' effectively means 'any normal murder that can be made more gruesome by drawing on internet fears', and so it draws together a bunch of cases that have almost no other common thread. that far, I don't think I have an objection (that's just a goofy list, like any other goofy list on wikipedia). however, this particular article is putting a good bit of effort into making the case that this non-existent common thread actually exists, which is original research. I kind of suspect that if we weeded out all the improper synthesis and weasel wording in the article, what we'd be left with is a couple of people talking about the myth of the internet killer, and a cockeyed list of unrelated murders that all (more or less incidentally) happened to use the internet (somehow), and have only a tangential relationship to the mythos. --Ludwigs2 07:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added to my comments there. I happen to agree with Lugwigs thinking here and more. Ludwig, I came here originally to let you know I commented about your comments and at the time wasn't sure if it was you who had stated the the internet doesn't kill. Well, now I do know you are the one so no need for me to ask now. :) Anyways, I hope you are well. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your (Ludwigs2) critical definition to some extent, but the way it's been used so far is more narrow than that. The killers have used the internet to lure victims, and the media has usually nicknamed them after that fact. Pretty simple, and a bounded list. The one special case I see is the film Untraceable, where the killer uses a webpage counter as a trigger (from what I recall he also used the internet as a lure, promising the sale of a model train, and using a dating website). It's possible to conceive of other ways the internet could be used in some connection with a murder other than luring victims, as you or someone mentioned if the killer learned of an affair through the internet and killed the spouse, or if the killer sent e-mails to the police or media about his crimes or blogged about his crimes or whatever. If such a person wasn't being called an "internet killer" by some outside source, it would to my mind be original research to include those unless the connections were being made in some other way by some outside source. I think the complaint about "internet killer" suggesting a killer who kills the internet is cute, but again that is the term being repeatedly used and I think that just shows certain limitations of English. The film Lesbian Vampire Killers for example could mean several different things, lesbians who kill vampires, lesbian vampires who kill, killers who kill lesbian vampires, etc. That there might be something better to call it isn't an argument against having an article, but having a different title, though to some extent it's not Wikipedia's place to come up with better labels for things than the ones in use. Шизомби (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

@ Schizombie: which metaphor do you prefer - that you're trying to make life imitate art, or that you're putting the cart before the horse? People have made some nice scary films about internet killers, true, but should we be engaged in the act of trying to give those films an ontological basis? wikipedia doesn't promote neologisms in other areas, what justification is there for promoting this neologism here? and careful, you're talking to a Buffy fan - lesbian vampire killers has a concrete meaning in that context. --Ludwigs2 16:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so sure I agree with/know what you're saying about the connection between the fictional and factual people labeled internet killers. Wikipedia is allowed to use neologisms, and there are secondary sources treating the subject of internet killers, to my satisfaction at least. I like the Buffy movie and even have the pressbook for it, but never got around to checking out the show, but there's a course about it at my university. Шизомби (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

4chan ANI thread

Not really wanting to draw out that thread any longer (DFTT), but your last post there was the most brilliant thing I've read all day. Thanks for a genuine belly laugh. Durova^Charge! 15:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

--Ludwigs2 16:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Commonsense

Let me know if you really do want to start that wikiproject, I would join in a heartbeat. I think it would really help alot of editors if they had a place to go and say "this is what I believe, and I think its commonsense, how does everyone else think?". That way others can say yes or no and give suggestions on how that editor can convince others on a discussion page that may not believe in commonsense. I know I've been in discussions where I just wish I could stand up and say "Ok, you may not believe that this is commonsense, but here's 15 other editors who do! Argue with them!".Camelbinky (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I will. I need to look into it a bit more though - I'm trying to gauge how much work goes into creating and maintaining a project like that. give me a few days on it. --Ludwigs2 06:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

user:Wadester16 created Wikipedia:WikiProject Capital District and did a great job, he might be someone to ask about how much it takes to create and maintain a project.Camelbinky (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and proposed a change to Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines based heavily on the 4th bulletpoint on the wikiproject common sense page. Basically it says that rules should not be used in a discussion to override common sense.Camelbinky (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

oh, man... stick your hand in a hornet's nest while you're at it. --Ludwigs2 01:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, feel free to comment on the page in support if you want, maybe itll fly under the radar and and if no seems to object to it we can put it in there and see if it stays. I personally would love to stick it to those users who go around and quote the rules like they are the ten commandments handed down by the wiki-god and be able to type "Oh yea, I've got a freakin' rule for you- Dont quote rules in a discussion to override common sense jack ass!".Camelbinky (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I will, if a discussion gets going, but I'd rather sit back and see what people say, first. I suspect the way it's written might be too loose for policy; it's ok to assert a particular viewpoint about wikipedia on a project page, but a bit more questionable to assert it for everyone. best case, it will get rewritten into something a bit less open-minded.

I'll note in passing that it's usually a good idea to assume that other people have reasons for what they're doing, even if what they're doing seems idiotic. that's for your own sanity: if you assume they have reasons, you can start trying to figure out what those reasons are; if you don't make that assumption all you can do is get pissed. I'm not saying the assumption will help resolve problems, but no sense wandering around wikipedia with your head in a black cloud all the time. --Ludwigs2 05:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:2009 US swine flu outbreak table

In this edit, you removed the {{navbar}} from Template:2009 US swine flu outbreak table. In future edits to that and other templates, please be careful not to remove this important template, as without it, editing the template from the articles in which it is transcluded becomes a real hassle. It adds that "v d e" to the bottom which really help out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mendaliv: please read the talk page. I removed the navbar because it was interfering with the sortable table. I'll add it back in properly in a few minutes. --Ludwigs2 13:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, but in the future please indicate something like that in your edit summary, particularly as the talk page comment only really makes sense now that you explain how it matters. While I can understand the need to temporarily remove it for technical reasons, a template as highly visible as the swine flu numbers template should always be easy to update and discuss for viewers of the main article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

will do. the navbar's back in, incidentally. --Ludwigs2 14:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sent you an e-mail

Want to know if you received it.

Thanks, Ward20 (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably - I don't check that email frequently, but it's reliable. let me go look, and I'll respond from there. --Ludwigs2 00:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comparison article

Thank you for taking notice.

I usually enjoy the oppurtunity to work with my fellow wikipedia editors, and I hope my experience with you may be similar.

My main objection to splitting the article(which would effectively delete it) is that this a topic on its own(as several papers were published about it). In addition, it survived an earlier AFD, so deleting it(and dispersing its information elsewhere) might seem contary to the decision of the ocmmunity.

I haven't worked on the article in a while as I am currently engaged in some dispute resolution and working on the gigantic Economic history of China revamp in my userpage. I welcome you to take a look over this article and helping to improve it in any way.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

well, we'll see. my general concern with these issues is the bubble effect: things that are minor side avenues in academic discussions often take on a life of their own on wikipedia because they get presented in a bubble, without their normal context. it's the same effect that can get you shouting at your girl/boyfriend in a crowded restaurant - you get so wrapped up in whatever argument you're having that you forget that the rest of the world doesn't care to hear it. may be the case here; may not be. at any rate, pardon my gruffness. I talk that way sometimes to get people's attention, but I'd never really do something like that. sneaky, but effective... --Ludwigs2 02:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Headsup: a discussion wrt the possibility of renaming

"Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks. --Ludwigs2 20:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

N/p! Btw, I have just now suggested a new name here: Talk:Internet homicide#Proposal. You're of obviously impressive abilities in analysis and argumentation (and thus what you say tends to carry a lot of weight), so, Ludwigs2, if we'd be so lucky that you've a spare moment to comment in this talkpage subsection I'd greatly appreciate it. ↜Just M E  here , now 07:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi, first I responded to your proposal at Internet homicide. Second, who is the Timothy Leary you are talking about, is he listed at another article? The reason I ask is I did a search of Timothy Leary and came up with someone that had a lot of controversaries, which I am assuming is not who you are talking about. I'd be interested in reading more about this if there is some place he is talked about. By the way, some good posting going on with you. I'm impressed, not that my opinions means anything but I thought I would tell you since a lot of negatives are usually the norm so I think saying something good about someone is a good thing to do. Thanks in advance, I'll be online either later or tomorrow morning. Having some RL problems so I'm off to lay down. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Leary - Public intellectual/LSD advocate from the '60s. he videotaped his suicide (from an overdose of drugs) and (so I thought) webcast it live. that last bit doesn't seem to appear in the article, though, so maybe I'm mistaken. or maybe the article is? I'll look into that. at any rate, he's got an interesting story: smart guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. the more draconian US drug laws exist because Leary (when he testified before congress) was naive enough to assume that congress would approach the issue with the same intellectual/philosophical perspective that he himself used. Ted Kennedy sandbagged him, utterly and completely.

Ah - a quick check shows that he promised' to webcast it, but his friends videotaped it instead, and haven't yet put it online... ok

thank you for the compliment, and yes, your opinion does mean a good bit. I hope you're not feeling too badly, and I hope it passes quickly. --Ludwigs2 16:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi Ludwig, i noticed your name in the Help Template talkpage and was wondering if you could help me with my new template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:History_of_Somalia as you can see when i used on the following article: Ajuuraan State, this weird [noinclude] code showed up at the start of article[1] but even when i deleted that code from the template it did not disappear so i'm lost and i hope you can help me with this problem, thanks! --Scoobycentric (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

you just forgot to close the table in the template, that's all. I've fixed it on the template. you really should use the standard {{infobox}} template for this - it makes tasks like this much easier and removes the possibility of errors like this. --Ludwigs2 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast reply Ludwig! and appreciate the tip about the infobox template(i'm a bit overwhelmed by all the codes in that article but i think if read it a few times, i will eventually process it all) --Scoobycentric (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

it's actually pretty straight forward. read the docs and play with it a little, you'll see. the only tricky thing might be if you want to change the color scheme (which requires a little CSS knowledge). let me know if you need help with that. --Ludwigs2 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Tao Te Ching

Hi Ludwigs2, I notice you have deleted the link I posted to a new translation of the Tao Te Ching with the comment "this seems to be a personal, web-based interpretation (unlike the others (all, I believe standard published texts). self-published sources aren't generally allowed". I don't agree with the removal. I believe that this interpretation (like all the others are interpretations as well) shows the actual context of the Tao Te Ching when living like the one who wrote it. I think this really has an educational value, because it makes understandable what is talked about in the Tao Te Ching, and how it relates to present-day life. I hope you will reconcider putting back the URL, Regards --Controle2 (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to talk about it, but let's discuss it on the article's talk page, where other editors can give their opinions as well. --Ludwigs2 18:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I made a new topic on the acticle's talk page --Controle2 (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)