User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

{{Contains Chinese text}}

The protected edit request at {{Contains Chinese text}} has been done, just a reminder that the documentation needs to be updated :) SkierRMH (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that now. thanks for the notice. --Ludwigs2 04:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Not sure what you were thinking, but we don't make massive changes to policy without much deliberation. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

what I was thinking was that it was copyediting and clarification, not a massive change. If I accidentally strayed into making changes in meaning (which was not my intention, but I suppose is possible) please tell me where, so that I can correct it. I'm not trying to be pushy; I just didn't think something like this was likely to cause issues. --Ludwigs2 20:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You for seeing the issue the way I see it. I apologize if everyone jumped all over you after you made the edit. I hate to see uncivil comments, but I love discussion. It is never possible to get full and complete consensus on any issue, especially policy. I see your point though. The edit you made was just a copy edit and in no way was a change in policy. It was a bit wordy, but I would have hoped that another editor would have come in and cleaned it up. There is just something about reverting someone elses edits that seems too rude to me. Vandalism not included.

That being said, I was only really hoping for a minor addition or a clarifycation, but I will be on your side and back you up in this consensus debate. What is clear is that the way the section is worded now, cannot stay that way. We need to play some give and take and allow the other editors who objected to your edit, a chance to perhaps make a suggestion on a possible change. Thanks again and Happy editing.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

well, yeah, but I thought I'd clean up some bad english while I was at it. but don't worry about the brouhaha - that is a long running personal issue between OM and me that has little or nothing to do with the edit itself. if you think what I did was too wordy, please feel free to offer any changes you think will make it better, including whittling away anything you think is excessive. the other stuff I'll try to address elsewhere. keep it focused on making the section better (and while you're at it, help me keep it focused there too) and don't get involved with the nonsense.

wikipedia, I swear... --Ludwigs2 03:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I try to stay away from as much nonsense as possible, that is why I thought the changes needed to be made, to help stop editors from interpreting the same information in two differant ways. --Jojhutton (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As ever, taking "sides" is irrelevant and possibly unconstructive – the important thing is that significant changes to contentious articles, and in particular changes to policies and guidelines, must be carefully considered with full community input. Massive changes make that more difficult, and every aspect of the change must be justified on the talk page. Look forward to examining the reduced proposals as time permits, . dave souza, talk 08:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Which was my point. Ludwigs, is there a page or whatever with the coding for emoticons? I get tired of typing ;) or :). •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

look at {{=)}}, that's what I use for emoticons. the only thing its lacking is a good eye-rolling emoticon, but I suppose it's probably better I don't have that around. I'd be tempted to use it way too much. .

I get both your and dave's point, believe me. I don't even disagree. I'm just tired of having points like that applied to me inequitably. personally, I have no use for (or interest in) rules that other people get to break with impunity. treat me fairly, and you'll find that I'm infinitely cooperative; make it a political game, and I'll IAR it thoroughly and completely.

as far as I'm concerned, there are no sides here. I certainly have no agenda I'm trying to push; I just say what strikes me as reasonable, and try to talk things out to reach some kind of consensus. Now I sense that you guys have me lumped into some POV-pusher category of your own devising (though I can't for the life of me figure out what POV you think I'm trying to push), but there's not a whole lot I can do about that. Either you're going to collectively accept me as a reasonable editor or you're not; c'est la vie. If there's anything I can do to help push it towards the former, please let me know, otherwise time and mutual experience will have to do to resolve the issue. ok? --Ludwigs2 20:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikipedeya

Yeah, the page is a mess. I figured I'd take out the edits by Sky whale, since it seems he only created the account to mess with other editors' userpages. I'm fine with letting the rest slide. Wronkiew (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

ok; I'll revert myself, then, and leave the page the way you had it. again, apologies for the mistake. --Ludwigs2 06:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

any reason you removed the deletion template?

uh, did I? on which page? sorry, been doing some vandalism patrolling out of boredom, and maybe I went mindless. tell me where and I'll revert or reinsert. --Ludwigs2 03:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC) entire article is totally unsourced. i suggest reading the talk page of the article i mentioned, and reading the comments i deleted, and i deleted them for sopaboxing which is against wiki rules and how the chinese editors immedietly disproved the korean nationalist theory.

the koreans desperately want to make it seem that they owned chinese, so they claim the jin dynasty royals were korean.

their deliberate mistranslations were disproved by chinese editors, so they moved their statements to articles like Hanpu.

Hanpu

Sure thing... interesting reason though. JRHorse (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

well, it's probably a nationalism-based content dispute - he sounds a bit peeved. I left him a note asking if maybe he could revise the article rather than call for its deletion - we'll see what he says. --Ludwigs2 03:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Korean historians recognize the ancestor of the Jin or Geum Empire to have been Gim Hambo (김함보). I will provide a source or piece of evidence that supports this statement by Korea. --74.232.227.167 (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)"

i think almost one year is certainly enough! the korean editors have obviously failed to find the reference, this was taken from the hanpu talk page.141.155.151.117 (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

well, maybe. I'll take a look at the page myself tomorrow. if they've actually made a wp:POV fork, that's generally frowned on, but that usually takes a pretty high standard of proof. just remember that Wikipedia works very slowly, and you have to follow its procedures one step at a time, carefully, otherwise you'll lose credibility. we don't want that.

incidentally. if you type colons ( : ) at the beginning of lines it creates indents, which makes conversations a lot easier to read. --Ludwigs2 03:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

you know the article is actually legitamite, but the statements that he is korean is not supported in any way by the chinese texts in wikisource, and considering that it was created bya korean, its blatant nationalist soapboxing. and someone has put another warning on my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.151.117 (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

well, wikisource is not a valid source for wikipedia articles (except maybe in odd and unusual circumstances). they need to find authoritative sources for their translations, or give an awfully good justification for using wikisource.

and yeah, you're going to get warnings as long as you charge around like a bull in a chinashop (err... no pun intended). the people who watch for vandals work very quickly, and most of them won't take the time to investigate that I do. be calm, be patient, and use the talk page as much as possible instead of trying to edit in contended changes. in other words, be a good citizen. --Ludwigs2 03:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

and the wikisource doesnt even support their claims. they delieberately mistranslated it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.151.117 (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

i have a feeling that the koreans made up their whole story based on the works of Shin Chaeho, considering the fact that he was a korean nationalist, makes his work an unreliable reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.151.117 (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - this really isn't my area of expertise. however, I will tell you that it's not wikipedia practice to comment on other editors. try to keep your edits and comments focused on content, and don't get in to trying to analyze what other people are doing, or why. that's not important. for example (just from your last post), I don't even know that the other editors on the page are Korean, much less that they are making things up, or that they're relying on some particular text that's not listed as a source on the page. you don't know these things either, and speculating on it is only going to make you angry and make them angry. try to keep the conversation completely about wp:reliable sources, that's the best, most sure-fire way to calm things down and make the article a better article. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

About this edit

You are many things, but you have never made one racist edit. My comments usefulness to you is rather limited, since pointing out racism trumps being civil, and since racism (sexism, ageism, and other isms) suppress collegial discussion. So, unless you are accusing someone of racism, and thereby expecting some amount of goodwill or leniency, my thoughts should not be used in any other context. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, that's a fair statement. heaven knows I don't like racism myself. consider you point taken. --Ludwigs2 01:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We agree on something. I'll buy the beer this round. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get it next time. which will probably be at the next election, if I read your talk page right. let's look forward to the day when we have to keep a large supply on hand to cover all our agreements. --Ludwigs2 21:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Ludwigs2, I appreciate the time that you're taking to look into this situation, and if you'd like to help with getting the tags off the Race and intelligence article, I think that would be a worthwhile endeavor. However, please don't use my talkpage (or any page on Wikipedia) to call someone a "socially incompetent ass",[1] as it is a violation of WP:NPA. I'd appreciate if you would please refactor that part of your statement immediately. Thanks, --Elonka 21:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

sorry, you're right (honestly, that's the way I think of myself sometimes, so I didn't see it as problematic, but on reflection it isn't correct to use it for others). I'll refactor it right now. --Ludwigs2 21:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And if you'd like to blank this entire section off your talkpage, go ahead.  :) --Elonka 21:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

nah, that's ok. I prefer to own my mistakes; makes me less likely to make them next time. I will look at the R&I page, though, and see what I can do. it may have to wait - I have a ton of writing to do before the end of the month, which I have (so far) been studiously ignoring by playing on wikipedia. Why I chose academia as a career I'll never knpow... --Ludwigs2 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Up to you.  :) I'm sort of playing editor-article matchmaker here, since different articles (and editors) improve in different ways... Some do best in a quiet environment where it's one editor quietly building an article without much conflict, and some thrive in situations where there is conflict, since it gets more voices into the discussion, and if the bickering spirited discussion is channeled properly, a good article emerges out the other end.  :) From what I've seen of your style, and of the disputes at the R&I article, I think you'd be a good match! --Elonka 22:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL - hmmmmm... I'll think I'll just go ahead and take that in the spirit intended. --Ludwigs2 02:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad you left it here, that was a pretty entertaining read compared to the usual Wiki-Politics usually seen on talk. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay okay, maybe that didn't come out quite like how I intended, but I hope the general meaning came across.  :) --Elonka 03:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

oh heavens, you're gonna make me die laughing. which, come to think of it, aint such a bad way to go... laughing, or during sex, or while eating ice cream: or maybe all three??? whooOOO! all is suddenly good with the world.

and KnowI - my pleasure, and nice sig. here's hoping you succeed. --Ludwigs2 03:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Another long post, but what do you think of this (four proposals)? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

give me some time on this one. I have some pressing work that needs to get done, and this requires more thought and attention than I can spare at the moment. maybe in a week? --Ludwigs2 01:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No rush at all! Wikipedia will still be here, and so will the article! Honestly, it really HAS been a far less contentious place to edit in the past few months. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say thank heaven for small favors about WP being less contentious, but that strikes me as a large favor indeed. let's hope it keeps up. --Ludwigs2 22:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A discussion on WP:SYNTH

Since you have previously been involved in discussions about the policy WP:NOR, it appears that you have a depth of understanding about this policy. I would appreciate your comments concerning an application of this policy's section WP:SYNTH here. Thank you. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks Ludwig for the tip on trying to bait me. It was helpful also to know that he is not really an administrator. I needed your suggestion more than you realize, I think I might have responded to him (taken his bait) if you hadn't made that suggestion to me.

Thanks very much for the tip! (I had posted a few days back on the Bigfoot page).

Appreciatively, Phil

Sean7phil (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

good, I'm glad it helped. don't be hard on OM, though: he's really a good editor, with a lot of experience. I have a number of disagreements with him, and I take objection to his style sometimes, but if you follow wikipedia policies and work towards making a better article, you'll find you can work with him productively. --Ludwigs2 22:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:WQA

See this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

lol - oh well, so much for the beer...

Vandal fighting \ preventing

I want to become a vandal fighter. Who will help me become one, and teach me how to notice vandalism (the sneaky type of vandalism). Perhaps there are certain tools I could use? Please give me some more information on this. I eagerly await your answer, J.B. 10:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jouke Bersma (talk • contribs)

Jouke - start with these two pages Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Cleaning_up_vandalism; the first is policy and the second is practice. you'll find anti-vandal tools and programs listed near the middle of the second page. you'll probably also want to request rollback privileges, which make the task easier. you should also read the more pertinent essays and guidelines at the bottom of the Vandalism page so that you don't accidentally start bothering good-faith editors. hope that helps.

It does ! J.B. (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 10:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Film banner problem

I'm trying to rewrite the code, but I'm getting some unexpected errors on the new code. User:Girolamo Savonarola/sub has my new code and a structure chart for what's happening, but as soon as I give it a futfilm parameter, it seems to lose it. I've tried mucking about in the template sandbox without much luck... Any insights would be greatly appreciated. (In the meantime, I've put in a protected edit request on the banner to revert the change that wrought all this.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I already answered on the talk page - basically, I thing you just need to add defaults for empty parameters - ifexpr requires numbers. try simple defaults - {{{1|}}} - or numeric defaults - {{{1|0}}}. I'll take a closer look at the code, though. --Ludwigs2 04:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

was that because I forgot the closing slash on the nowikis, or with respect to my answer? {{=}|biggrin}} --Ludwigs2 04:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at Template talk:Film - would appreciate any more help, definitely! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC) (And thanks for what you've already pointed out!)

lol - ok, let's move the discussion over there. I made some small changes to the version on your sub page, incidentally... --Ludwigs2 05:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See the template talk page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell me again, though, what does the |0}}} do? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

literally, 0 says if the parameter 'name' is set, use it, otherwise use 0 as default. the problem is this: a parameter without a default {{{name}}} will return the text string {{{name}}} if no value is given. a parameter with an empty default will return a null string. either of these will choke {{#ifexpr:..., because IFEXPR explicitly requires a number, and will throw an error with anything else. that's why I suggested you add in a numeric default like 0, because that way the IFEXPR will always be happy (unless the user puts text instead of a number in the parameter). you just need to decide whether the default should be a low value (so that CURRENTMONTH/CURRENTYEAR is always larger than the default) or whether you want it to be a large number (so they are always smaller than the default). --Ludwigs2 05:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the code is designed not to give those parameters access to the IFEXPR unless they have a value. (In which case, the text will get through anyway...is there a way to filter out non-numeric values?) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking into that, actually. and the answer is yes. if seems that IFEXPR does handle null or string values, as long as they are not used in expressions. for instance, if parameter 'P'=ABC, this would work - {{#ifexpr:{{{P}}}|yes|no}} (it would return no) - but this would not work - {{#ifexpr:{{{P}}}>5|yes|no}} (it would throw an error). that means you can do a test using nested ifexpr, like so: {{#ifexpr:{{#ifexpr:{{{P}}}|{{{P}}}|0}}>5|yes|no}}. you could also use the IFERROR function - something like {{#iferror:{{#ifexpr:{{{P}}}>5|yes|no}}|no}}. though that might be overkill - anyone who tries to put in text will immediately see an error and fix the problem, which is probably what you want. adding code to give a default value when editors do boneheaded things might mean you get a lot of boneheaded edits in the long run. --Ludwigs2 05:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

P.s I just tested it, and it still throws an error for text (though not for nulls). interesting...--Ludwigs2 06:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

ah, ok... IF you want to test for the presence of text, use this: {{#iferror:{{#ifexpr:{{{1|}}} | {{{1}}} | 0 }}| 0 }}. the inner IFEXPR tests to see if it's null or has a value (and returns 0 if its null), but it throws an error if it's a text string, which gets caught by the outer IFERROR; that will return a 0. a bit complex, but... I'm still not sure you want to catch text errors though, per above. --Ludwigs2 06:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the new error and suggesting a fix. Quick question, though, that change will function as an "or", correct? As in, it will trip the category even if both parameters aren't in use? Thanks again, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

yeah to both. literally, the {{#if:...|A|B}} construction tests to see if the first thing is null, and does A otherwise. so {{#if:{{{futyear|}}}{{{futmonth|}}}|A|B}} will concatenate the values of futmonth and futyear as a string and test if it's null; if both are unset, the string will be the null string (giving B), but if either is set the string will be non-null (giving A). what you were thinking would actually be coded like this: {{#ifexpr:{{{futyear|}}} or {{{futmonth|}}}|A|B}} which would test the expression 'X or Y' - that would also work, but futmonth or futyear would both have to be numbers, otherwise it would throw an error. --Ludwigs2 05:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...not sure if I understand. What I want is that if any parameter value exists for either futmonth or futyear and the class isn't Future, then it should be Incorrectly tagged... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

right. so, looking at example cases (using the year 2030 and the month 8):

• (note) it only gets to this IF statement if class ≠ Future...

1. futyear = 2030, futmonth = 8:
   • {{{futyear|}}}{{{futmonth|}}}='20308'
   • {{#if:{{{futmonth|}}}{{{futyear|}}}|...}} returns true, and sets the category
2. futyear = 2030, futmonth = null:
   • {{{futyear|}}}{{{futmonth|}}}='2030'
   • {{#if:{{{futmonth|}}}{{{futyear|}}}|...}} returns true, and sets the category
3. futyear = null, futmonth = 8:
   • {{{futyear|}}}{{{futmonth|}}}='8'
   • {{#if:{{{futmonth|}}}{{{futyear|}}}|...}} returns true, and sets the category
4. futyear = null, futmonth = null:
   • {{{futyear|}}}{{{futmonth|}}}=null
   • {{#if:{{{futmonth|}}}{{{futyear|}}}|...}} returns false, category not set

see how it works? --Ludwigs2 21:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page! Shirulashem (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

my pleasure. --Ludwigs2 00:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

Something odd happened with my revert, looking again, and I'm a bit confused now. I've self reverted for now and will look again when I have time. It was probably a mistake on my part. Apologies. Verbal chat 08:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

no problem. keeping track of what's going on at that page is awfully confusing lately, and I'm not surprised that things are getting tangled. I'll go over the changes more closely myself in the meantime, and look forward to what you have to say. heaven willing, we'll all get it straightened out.

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Fringe theories/sandbox

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fringe theories/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Fringe theories/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I would strongly suggest that you remove your personal attacks from the MFD page. Discuss the merits of the page - not the nom. Vsmith (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

can you be more specific, please? I thought I was being fairly factual - OM has publicly admitted that he doesn't like me, and he has publicly refused to resolve the issue with me several times, and a short list of diffs will show that the only problematic edits on the sandbox were made by him. that lends a tremendous amount of credence to the idea that this is nothing more than a misapplication of process. I'll happily remove anything you think is unwarranted, of course, but shouldn't I be allowed to argue that the move for deletion was never sincere in the first place, given the evidence to that end? incidentally, the issue is closed - MastCell is going to userfy the page, and we'll get on with things - but still, I'd like to remain on record as saying that this was pure gaming the system. --Ludwigs2 00:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Posted on WP:ANI so others can view it and see if they agree with me or not, seems OM thinks there is a problem. Maybe I'm seeing more than is there. Vsmith (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

well, OM would think there was a problem if I said 'the sky is blue'... but I don't know. I'm more than willing to refactor if people seem to think it's excessive, and I admit I am a bit miffed at OM for refusing to clear the air. he just keeps dragging this dispute into arena after arena, when we could resolve it quickly with a few minutes conversation. he doesn't seem to want anything except to get me blocked - is that reasonable behavior? well, we'll see what others have to say. maybe this time I can get him to talk it out. --Ludwigs2 01:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked: I've blocked you for a week due to your persistently uncivil commentary across multiple talk and project talk pages; see WP:ANI#User:Ludwigs2. If you would like to contest this block, please place {{unblock|your reason here...}} on this page. east718 // talk // email // 02:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Who

The "who" tag is meant to indicate that it sjhould be said by who, or who says something. In this case, by who is Royal Rife noted for his, etc. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ah, ok, I misunderstood. I'll restore it, if you haven't already. --Ludwigs2 23:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, maybe we could rephrase it. Just it does seem like it could be useful to frame how he became known and such in the lead, perhaps mention Lynes. Now, we need to be careful: Rife's work is pretty fringe, even for alternative medicine - you'd have to go searching to find such treatments - so I think I'm justified in asking that we use appropriate language to frame it as a fringe theory - claimed, purported, and so on - but that said, I think there's significant room for improvement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I'd agree with both those points. I was really just trying to do some cleanup, and maybe straighten out the more grotesque misrepresentations as I found them. let me read through the references and see if Lynes is best or if there's something more to point. --Ludwigs2 23:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

RK

Hello, your comments will be helpful here, Talk:Ramakrishna#Problems_with_lede, Talk:Ramakrishna#Cherry_Picked_Quotes. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, but I'm not sure what good it will do. Gothean seems to be on a tear about the Vedanta order, and I don't think he's going to listen to the kind of reasoning I have to offer. --Ludwigs2 01:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and yes I agree that the Biography should be improved. Even other editors had mentioned this, (and had in fact asked to remove the reminiscences) I will start doing this as and when I get time. To give another example of how reductive psychoanalysis can be, read this. ( Hidden in the comment, and remove it when done! ) --Nvineeth (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

well, there's no real hiding things on wikipedia - it will always be there in the history. honestly, I like Freud, and there's a place for that kind of analysis in the world, but the vast majority of socio-political analysts do it so badly it's not even worth reading; the analysis becomes a projection of the analyst's issues, and loses all but superficial contact with the subject. but such is life...

should we make a plan for revising the biography, or just have at it and see what happens? --Ludwigs2 05:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and I feel that its better to make a plan for revising the biography. I will start by removing the reminiscences and work on the tone, and I may as well rewrite few of the things. But its very good if another editor without much edit history marks the issues, because the perspectives are different, fresh, and very valuable. For the same reason I had added for peer review at WP:BIOGRAPHY to get it reviewed by a person not so familiar with Hinduism/philosophy, but unfortunately it ended by being reviewed by an editor good in hinduism and philosophy! Pls make your changes and share your comments. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

honestly, I like Freud, and there's a place for that kind of analysis in the world, but the vast majority of socio-political analysts do it so badly it's not even worth reading; the analysis becomes a projection of the analyst's issues, and loses all but superficial contact with the subject.

That's a wonderful editorial opinion, if completely irrelevant. The material that you removed, (with an unsupported accusation in the edit summary that it was a conspiracy theory) was well-sourced, much better sourced than the rest of the material in the article. — goethean ॐ 15:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

question

Did you read the material that I added and you removed from the Ramakrishna article? — goethean ॐ 15:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

yes I did, and I may actually reintroduce some of it as I do further revisions. but what you had there (in the form you had it) was just excessive. there's a difference between a critique and a criticism, you know, that needs to be observed. Critiques point out issues and potential problems in the hope that everyone will benefit; criticisms are just out for blood. what you had in there was just hatchet-work. I don't want to exclude the material, but let's approach the topic with a bit of dignity. --Ludwigs2 21:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Your response is absolutely ludicrous. The two sentences that I wanted to add to the article are the consensus of the scholars in the field. I have proved that. — goethean ॐ 23:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

that was non-responsive. 'ludicrous' explains nothing of what you mean, and doesn't help me one whit in seeing your point of view. if you want to discuss the matter, that's fine, but please don't simply shout out your opinion as though everyone must agree with you. --Ludwigs2 00:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but I find your response absurd. The single sentence that I wanted to add to the article was well-supported, far far better supported than anything else in the article. In response, I'm hearing every non-sequitor in the book: the scholars didn't really mean what they wrote, you can't use book reviews (keeping in mind the the rest of the sourcing in the article is garbage), it's not dignified enough, etc.). My inability to respond is based partly in shock that you are siding with a cult-like religious organization and against academic consensus. That is distinctly weird. — goethean ॐ 00:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

you're entitled to find my response absurd; you're not entitled to jump on me about it. communication is all I ask.

with respect to your point, though, you have (so far as I can tell) two actual sources and a number of people who have reviewed them. reviews don't count, and two sources do not make for a majority opinion. add that the sources in question present an unnecessarily pointed and defamatory representation of the subject, and I can't really credit them as being fully reliable sources. there are any number of ways to talk about the eccentricities of RK's sexuality than to say that his entire spiritual practice was based on homoerotic urges. --Ludwigs2 00:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

All I can do is suggest that you read up on the subject under discussion. — goethean ॐ 01:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

no, you can do more than that. you can be civil, respectful of others, and you can refrain from trying to bulldog your edits in every chance you get. ok? --Ludwigs2 01:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You can characterize my edits in any way you like. I will continue to advocate that the article reflect current academic consensus rather than the discredited views of a religious organization. Feel free to continue to do the opposite. — goethean ॐ 03:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Do what you think you must. the article will work out the way it's supposed to whether you choose to act civilly or whether you continue to act in this aggressive and somewhat paranoid manner. all that's really going to change is how pleasant the road leading to a good article is. it's no skin off my nose if you choose to make it a bumpy road; I can handle bumpy. --Ludwigs2 04:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

re

...when you accuse me of being part of some bizarre mission conspiracy to suppress some 'secret truth'...

My comments must have given you the wrong impression. I'm not aware of having done this and don't think that you are part of a conspiracy. However, by supporting the case of Nvineeth et al on the talk page, you are, of course, preventing an academic perspective from being added to the article, a perspective, which is, to understate the case wildly, needed. — goethean ॐ 20:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

please try to gain some perspective before you destroy your credibility entirely

Since you have written off the entire academic religious studies community as being conspiracy theorists and of misusing psychoanalysis[2], I'm not too concerned about your questioning of my credibility. — goethean ॐ 20:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

overstatement doesn't get you anywhere, either. In point of fact, most of the authors you want to include are included; they're just included in a way that isn't given to excessive overstatement (i.e. in a balanced and neutral way). you do recognize that, right? seems to me that you're trying to use these sources to push some personal agenda (for whatever inner reasons, I can't begin to imagine), which I could normally live with except you're pushing it so darned hard. and no, I don't expect or need you to tell me that's so; everyone with common sense who works on the article can see it.

so, fair notice: the next aggressive, insulting comment you make on the talk page will earn you a warning, and if you do it again after that I'll report you on ANI. if you won't control yourself and behave civilly, then I'll ask the admins to do it. ok? --Ludwigs2 21:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your amateur psychoanalysis of my motives. I guess when you do it, it's perfectly civil. My concerns are as follows: the article does not reflect the consensus of the scholars who have written about Ramakrishna. Instead, it reflects the beliefs of a religious organization. That seems to be a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy.

Meanwhile, Nvineeth continues God's work of removing contemporary scholars from the biography section. Almost there! It's almost 100% religious text and 0% scholarship!

I notice that you didn't deign to respond to my comments on the talk page, so I will ask you directly: why should the article have a seperate section for "views and studies" apart from the biography? Isn't the biography a compilation or summation of "views" and "studies"? Why should the views of contemporary authors be in a ghetto, and the views of a religious organization dominate the biography section? I believe that the biography section should compile the views of scholars on Ramakrishna's biography, rather than telling the story passively received from swamis.

In point of fact, most of the authors you want to include are included; they're just included in a way that isn't given to excessive overstatement (i.e. in a balanced and neutral way).

What I think you mean is that the last thirty years of scholarship are described in 5 sentences, while the views of a religious organization dominate the rest of the 17 page article.

I have no problem with taking the issue to AN/I. — goethean ॐ 21:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, your "academic perspective" consists of one book + book reviews! Dont be overconfident about ANI, there are enough PAs, incivility and all editors know how to refute what you claim to be "academic perspective". --Nvineeth (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, dont try to mislead other editors, the [diff you have cited here does not remove "contemporary scholars"... did you read the edit summaries?? --Nvineeth (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

to answer your question, by the way (I thought I posted this earlier, but it must have foobarred)

1. the biography needs to be rewritten so that it's more encyclopedic; that will remove some of your objections. in this case, however, the basic facts of RKs life were primarily recorded by his acolytes and devotees; he wasn't really all that famous until after his death.
2. Freudian psychohistories don't belong in a bio in any case; encyclopedic biographies are supposed to give the simple, basic facts of a person's life without embellishment. he was born here, lived there, worked at that job, etc. whatever you think of psychohistory, it clearly doesn't constitute a basic fact of RK's life. at best it's an interpolation of a presumed fact based on observed behavior.

I hope that's clear.

Nvineeth - let's try to keep this out of the personal as much as possible. hardest thing for anyone is not to respond personally to what they see as a personal comment. it needs effort on both sides to keep things cool. --Ludwigs2 06:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry and Thanks for advice Ludwigs! Interested editors can see more cherry picked quotes which throw more light on psychoanalysis. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV faq

Hello, saw your comments at the NPOV faq, and you are really putting lot of effort in fixing things at Wikipedia! In fact when I first read the NPOV page and then the NPOV faq, I had felt that few things from the faq should be there on the main page as well and you have rightly indicated this! Thanks for the initiative. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks, I appreciate it. I just hope (faintly) that others are as kind in their appraisals. --Ludwigs2 07:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment...

at the NPOV page. I appreciated the explanation. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

it was heartfelt, so my pleasure. really, despite my occasional gruffness and the bad impression a couple of other editors keep trying to paint on me, I really am interested in getting things right, and that means working with other sensible editors. so please don't wander too far from the discussion. --Ludwigs2 21:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a personal note: I agree that fringe theories can have a valuable place in the classroom. I've found that even people who work with a given subject on a day-to-day basis are sometimes hard pressed to answer, cogently anyway, the criticisms of the fringe. Being forced to see one's own field (or a subject one is learning) from the side or the outside can be illuminating. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Contact Archive

Please sign my contact archive. --cooljuno411 06:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Model template

One more minor fix is needed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Stalking horse

I do not believe I had ever encountered that term before you just used it - neato! - Eldereft (cont.) 17:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

FYI: [3]. Tiptoety ^talk 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the notice. I've responded. will this never end? --Ludwigs2 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for happening along at page E(E). I am glad to see that things also seem to have died down at the other former battleground (I was away awhile). Call me anytime. Redheylin (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

my pleasure. I've been off-wiki for a while too. sometimes you just need to recharge.

---

Civility

This edit is incivil. Please do not refer to people you disagree with as parrots or as unable to have reasoned discussion. If you cannot remain civil, consider taking a break from arguing with the people that aggrivate you. Hipocrite (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I said nothing about being 'unable'; in fact, my post made it clear that I do hope for a different response. what I wrote was simply an accurate representation of the course of the debate thus far, and as such is unobjectionable. however, if you'd like me to refactor the parrot line I'll do that (I had no intention for that analogy to get taken personally). please let me know if that's the case. --Ludwigs2 20:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd reccomend you remove the parrot line, yes. Hipocrite (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that now. my apologies if it caused any offense. --Ludwigs2 20:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, none here. It's possible for me to care less about civility towards myself, but I'm not quite sure how. I also don't care about the article in question, or the argument, or the number of molecules - I just want to make sure that it's written in scientific language. I brought it up because I'm spending this afternoon being the self-appointed civility police. Have a good one. Hipocrite (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

lol - you too. and please, anytime you see something that I should refactor or change, don't hesitate to tell me. I like the civility police, even when they're knocking at my door (because I know myself well enough to know that what comes out of my mouth isn't always what I mean to come out of my mouth). I (for one) appreciate the effort. --Ludwigs2 21:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

untowards civility warnings

This is not incivility. Yes, it's bit strongly worded, but it's only an assertion about a disagreement and nothing more. Hence, leaving warnings like this is at the least uncivil and on the edge of harassment. If you carry on leaving warnings like this, I may block you. If someone is uncivil towards you, please ask me or another admin for help. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Gwen. I hadn't intended on leaving any more (and even if I had been, I certainly wouldn't now) so I think that's settled, but I really don't understand the situation here. OM has left warnings just like that on my talk page (though not as politely worded) in the past: did I do something different in the process that made what I did incorrect? further, the quote of OM's you posted was the last in a string of twelve or thirteen such posts from him which have varied from (to use your term) 'strongly worded' to deliberately offensive. (diffs - [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] -and this just over the past two weeks I've been back on wiki). None of them were provoked, and most of them I never responded to: I thought the few notices I gave were reasonable considering the circumstances. How should I have handled this kind of thing? I mean, I don't really care if OM thinks I'm a fringe POV-pusher (that's something going on in his mind that has nothing to do with me), and if you're asking me to just ignore him completely as he spouts it out in edit after edit, I can do that; mostly I complain because I don't think it makes for a very congenial atmosphere for others. please advise, because I would like to know the correct way on wikipedia to deal with this issue. --Ludwigs2 01:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The pith is, neither of you should be commenting on each other, only on content and sources. I've said rather much the same thing to OM. The most helpful thing to do, if you think someone is being too snarky with you, is give 2 or 3 diffs to an admin without much further comment about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

ok, that's what I will do in the future (and otherwise I'll just ignore anything off-topic in his edits). thanks. --Ludwigs2 03:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Technical help content

Thanks for being prepared to deal with the cesspit that is Help:Template; it and its meta companion are without a doubt the most horrifically complicated help pages we have, dealing with a not-overly-difficult topic in gratuitous detail and confusing levels of jargon and, at times, inaccuracy. So thanks for any effort to sort them out. However, are you aware of the slow drift of help content from en.wiki, to meta, and then on to http://www.mediawiki.org ? This latter website, which is also a Wikimedia project, has been set up specifically to provide documentation and support for the MediaWiki software; its Help: namespace is in the public domain and so can be copied freely into other wiki installations to provide immediately-accessible help content that covers the technical aspects of using MediaWiki. Obviously mediawiki.org must remain site-neutral, so there are some help pages that will never be able to be moved there; but Help:Template is not one of them. There is already a page mw:Help:Templates which is intended to be a more accessible guide to templates, very much like you are doing here on en.wiki. Have you considered working on that page either as well as, or instead of, the horrible mess that we've got on en.wiki? Happy‑melon 10:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I knew about that. I actually worked on the mw:Help:Advanced templates page a while back. I was thinking that once I finished fiddling with the wikipedia version (and got some feedback that it was working for people), I'd port it over mw:Help:Templates whole hog. then I was going to see what I could do about standardizing the support and demo templates, to make the help pages more portable from wiki to wiki... incidentally, what is the system (or is there one) for synchronizing the mediawiki help pages with the other wiki help pages, do you know? or is that kind of thing left up to wandering souls who happen to notice? --Ludwigs2 21:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently there is no system, although we're looking at taking the system used at Wikia (where all their help content is stored on their equivalent of meta and then ported by a software extension to be visible in the same place on all their individual wikis) to be usable here; the problem is that Wikia uses a 'bastardised' version of MediaWiki such that things written specifically for that environment tend to explode horribly when brought over here. But ideally the system would be roughly the same as pages in the File: namespace when there are existing pages on Commons.

Unfortunately, because of the license issues, it won't be possible for you to have your work imported to mediawiki.org if it's build on an existing page here. The mw Help: namespace is in the public domain, so every contributor to a page that's imported there has to have explicitly released his or her work from the standard GFDL license. That won't be possible on a page with such a complicated edit history; you would probably have to contact all the authors on meta as well as the en.wiki editors. The only sensible way to get it done is to write an entirely new page so you are the sole author; that's what I did for my attempt at a new Help:Template :D (mw:User:Happy-melon/Templates). Happy‑melon 11:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

I am sure you are aware that the debate over Noah's Ark has been going on for a long time. Specifically, the opening sentences have been debated in great and heated depth. It was because of the debate there that opened the debate at NPOV/FAQ. The current wording was the best compromise we could achieve, although nobody was wholly satisfied. I started the NPOV/FAQ debate because I saw problems with the way the guidelines were written. It was my assumption that, if we could get to the root of the issue in the FAQ, then it would simplify and stratify the debate at Noah's Ark. Most of the protagonists at Noah's Ark have now stopped the debate there pending the outcome at NPOV/FAQ. You are, obviously, free to re-open the debate at Noah's Ark, but I am politely requesting that you hold fire for a little while (as the rest of us have done) until the NPOV/FAQ is sorted.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

no worries. I'm not interested in stirring things up over there; I was just testing to see what the response would be. now I know. sorry, that's the scientist in me... --Ludwigs2 18:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It will keep things simple; although the intransigence of certain editors may make the whole thing moot anyway.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent article

Hello Ludwigs2,

Thank you for an excellent article on dignity that is very eloquently written and shows an insight and depth of knowledge of both the political and philosophical side of the debate. I am mightily impressed with the outcome.

Cicero79 (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Cicero79

Quick message

Hi. I only have a quick moment ... but I wanted to touch base. You had replied to me on the Village Pump page, about setting up some template that will number correctly columns that are split. (By the way, I am not very computer or tech-savvy ... just so that you know.) Thanks for the replies. My quick thought was ... is it feasible that you do not limit the columns to 25 maximum? I only ask because I can foresee many columns that might need to be longer, at least slightly. But, I also know nothing about how one programs these templates, etc. I assume that you only arbitrarily selected 25? Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks for your help! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

oh, yeah, I can expand the size of the lists almost indefinitely; it's just that there's no real mechanism for open-ended templates on wikipedia. basically, I have to write a line of code to check and see if a parameter exists, and if it does, include it in the list. if I want to allow 25 parameters that's 25 lines; if I want to allow 99 parameters that's 99 lines... not difficult, but there's a playoff between the upper limit and the amount of useless work the servers have to do on small lists. what do you think would be a reasonable maximum number? 40? 50? --Ludwigs2 20:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks. Yes, off the top of my head ... I would say that 50 is a good number. I can easily see a list of, say, 100 items being split into two columns of 50 each. And, frankly, if the first column "needs" more than 50 items ... there'd be little point in creating new columns. So, to me, 50 sounds good. The number 25 seemed too small, as I could easily see lists requiring 30 or so. To me, 50 seems like a good limit. What do you think? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi ... another quick question. I do not really know much about computers or programming or templates, etc. So, I was a little confused when I read the template page that you created. In the template that you created, does the author have to know ahead of time how many items are in the list? If so, doesn't that defeat the purpose of your template? In other words, here is an example. Let's just say that I have a list of 40 items ... 20 in the left column and 20 in the right column. For this example, let's just pretend that this is a list of all Hollywood actors who have earned more than $20 million per film. Now, a few months from now, some editor in Wikipedia adds 5 more names to that list ... and adds them in alphabetical order (just as the original list appeared). At this point, won't the column numbering get all screwed up? At this point, does the editor have to go in and affirmatively "adjust" the numbers? If so, doesn't that defeat the point? As I said, I am not computer programming or tech savvy ... so I don't understand this stuff. I do know that when I use the "#" symbol ... the computer automatically just prints the list of numbers on each item in the list ... and I don't have to do any affirmative work other than add the "generic" symbol of "#". So, is there a "generic" way to make any multi-column list become numbered correctly without the editor affirmatively going in and doing the counting himself and adding that count into the code? Wikipedia articles and lists are constantly being edited ... meaning items from the list are constantly being added into/subtracted out of the list. When you have the generic "#" symbol, that does not mess up the numeration of the list items. The computer program "automatically" adjusts the numbers (count) whenever a new item is added to the list or removed from the list. Does your code also work like this? Or does it requires an editor to manually do a "re-count" (and add that new number into the code) ... every time an item is added / subtracted from the list? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

If my above explanation was worded poorly, and did not "get across" what I was trying to say ... here is an example: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page36. Please look at that link, if you can. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

No, I understand what you mean. at present, if the list gets changed, the editor has to figure out how to rebalance and renumber it. I'll think about it a bit more, but the problem is that templates aren't very powerful, programming-wise. it's hard to figure out how many 'real parameters get sent to a template, and a royal pain to conditionally determine where the breaks should go. if I can figure it out, though, I'll update the template.

I've upped the number to 50 per column.

Thanks. Just so that I am clear, however ... I am in no way concerned with rebalancing the list. In fact, there may be several instances where the left column and the right column should not be evenly balanced ... for a variety of reasons. My only concern is that the very first item in the right-hand list be numbered consecutively from the very last item in the left-hand list. Is there no easy way to have "x" and then "x+1" ... or however template code is programmed? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

that's what I'm thinking about - --Ludwigs2 05:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

can't be done (not on irregularly sized columns, though maybe on equal sized columns). for irregular sized columns, the user has to specify where the columns begin and end, somehow. the two ways I can think of doing that (using a named parameter to give the break point and using a blank unnamed parameter) have their own problems: the first doesn't solve the issue - the user still has to count things up - and the second would only work correctly for two column lists (might be worth doing, that) --Ludwigs2 07:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Checkuser

Mmkay, thanks for the info! Montgomery' 39 (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, would a good reason be like checking a user's IP because he personally attacked you and you think he is someone you know who hates you? (No, I'm not being paranoid, I'm just asking). Montgomery' 39 (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

well, checkuser is only used (as I understand it) for grievous wiki problems, like sock-puppetry, harassment, threats of physical harm, and etc. you can see the details on the wp:checkuser page. If you think that someone is your off-wiki life has followed you on-wiki to cause you grief, it would really be a question of what kind of grief s/he was causing you. if it's just disruptive stuff, checkuser is probably not the way to go - there are other means for handling disruptions. if the person is doing more untoward things - revealing personal information about you, making threats, or the like - then maybe it is the way to go. Wikipedia's general attitude is that people are allowed to do what they like on-wiki with anonymity (though they'll get blocked for some stuff that's inappropriate). WP will only start looking at people in their real lives when it's absolutely necessary to do so..

that being said, you can always ask for checkuser, if you think it's a borderline case. checkusers reserve the right to refuse anything they think is improper or unnecessary. --Ludwigs2 19:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Kobza

I/d welcome your thoughts on the above, talk page. Redheylin (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

whoa, sorry. this is a topic that I know absolutely nothing about (except that it's made of wood and makes pretty noises). you could hit me over the head with it, and I still wouldn't know what to call the darned thing. --Ludwigs2 19:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You may have an interest in this

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Ben Tillman --FimusTauri (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

it's a shame

None of it changes the fact that he's one hundred percent right, but he had no clue about how to go about it within the community. I hope he figures something out on his break, because we need more editors like him but following the norms and methods of the community are the way to go. Either that or marshal enough support to just IAR the changes. Probably should have worked on that before an arbcom case though. Anyways, thanks. -M^ask? 00:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Very well said. Doing the right thing in the wrong way creates too many problems here to be tolerated for long, and he was tolerated for an amazingly long time, simply because his POV was so right. I too hope he learns something, but I'm not sure.... I fear a personality quirk that makes it well nigh impossible. We'll see what happens when he gets back. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

you know, I don't know enough about what Wikipedia was like 'back then'; I can see how his approach might have evolved out of some very necessary tactics to deal with uber-aggressive POV-pushers. All I know, though, is that (for one reason or another) I got dumped into his 'problem' category, and once I got there there was no way out. his system is so routinized that there's no way of communicating with him 'from the other side'. I mean, hell - I know I'm more sympathetic towards fringe POVs than most, and God knows I talk too much, but I'm essentially reasonable about things. I'd have been fine working with him if I could have worked with him. It just got to a point where I couldn't make any edit on a page he was interested in without it turning into a major headache. hopefully when he comes back he'll have a little more flexibility around editors (such as myself) who may not be quite sympathetic to his view, but aren't part of the problem that he's trying to deal with. and hopefully by that time I'll have gotten over being pissed at him for the unnecessary grief he's given me. --Ludwigs2 01:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)