User talk:Ludwigs2

An award for you!

	Rose Water Award
	For making "Rose water" my new favorite term in regards to policies, behavior and civility! :) SarahStierch (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification

I've reported all three of us here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ludwigs2.2C_User:HiLo48.2C_and_Talk:Pregnancy--Tznkai (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)