User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Gorilla Cage metaphor

Just want to register my great appreciation of the gorilla cage metaphor. Hear, hear! A nice touch of humor, aptness, and perspicuity drawing on experience. May it remain a lively presence in Fringe discussions. Bn (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Reverted closing of RD question

I have reverted your closing of the questions regarding Texas law on the Humanities Reference Desk, which I thought was unjustified. I discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Reversed unjustified closing of question. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Of interest

Olive branch. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Accepted. I'm curious as to the cause, but not so curious that I'd demean the gesture, so... --Ludwigs2 05:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Trick

Did you know that you can watchlist pages that don't exist?

So you could go to a redlink like this one or this one, hit the 'watch' button, and if the page is ever created, it'll turn up in your watchlist. Isn't that cool? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not know that you could do that, no. And that does seem to be very useful (maybe even more useful than I know - I'm going to need to consider the ramifications of it more fully).

Has anyone told you lately that you are absolutely brilliant? because it is evident that you are, on a number of different dimensions. Thank you. --Ludwigs2 05:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Presented to Ludwigs2, for your efforts to defend by Wikipedia by putting a certain editor in his place.[1] -- Brangifer (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam appeal at AE

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Captain_Occam

Captain Occam is appealing the decision made by EdJohnston at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive75#Captain_Occam. This is a courtesy note to make you aware of the request. Vassyana (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci and ArbCom

Ludwig,

There’s a discussion between me and Roger Davies here where I’d appreciate your input. You and I have talked before about Mathsci’s friendship with several members of ArbCom, and you clearly knew more about this than anyone else in that discussion, but if you gave any details about which arbitrators he was friends with or where this was stated, I don’t remember it anymore. Based on his recent phone conversation with Mathsci, I assumed that Roger Davies was an example, but it looks like I may have been wrong to assume that. Would you mind telling me/reminding me for which arbitrators this is the case, and where they or Mathsci have pointed it out?

If you don’t want to comment in the discussion between me and Roger, just telling me the answer to this here in your user talk would be helpful also. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oakie Doke

For your edification and singing practice:

Title sequence of Oakie Doke. Mathsci (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

great line

at POV/N: "...the headache-inducing aspect. you may be from whatever wing you perceive yourself as being from, if any; it's not a pain in the wing your style of interaction is giving me." I got a laugh from that, and not only because I recognized it as the truth for that particular editor in my limited interactions with him. I may have to quote you in the future. -PrBeacon (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Assistance request

i've enjoyed reading your comments regarding Fringetheories and the Cryus Cylinder/Human issue.

I have a couple of concerns which I would like to bring up to you and on which would like to receive your feedback.

There are a lot of accusations of "nationalists, anti-nationalists", etc on the talk pages of these articles. I've also noticed that opposing sides will tend to accuse the other of sockpuppetting, meatpuppetting etc. Moreover, editors seem to be interested in making blanket statements abou propositions without any sort of rationale. I find these accusations and judgments derail the issue and disrupt any semblance of resolving issues. Any suggestions how we can be more active in enforcing civility and promoting a concentrated discussion. I realize that what I bring up is a fairly common issue, but i believe that it has taken a whole different level at the articles in question.

Next, I'm hopeful that we can address the Cyrus Cylinder/Human Rights issue in the manner that you so clearly had done (ie, affirmative statements: "is a charter of HR," "isn't a charter"). I'm not quite sure how to promote this but would like your feedback so as to find a way to actually reach consensus on these issues.

Hope I'm not taking away from you time. I appreciate your help. GoetheFromm (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is simply no way to 'encourage' people to participate in discussions properly. Either they are inclined to do so (in which case there's no effort involved) or they are not inclined to do so (in which case the discussion is pretty much doomed to be endlessly circular). In the second case, it's more a question of calmly and slowly herding the discussion into a corner such that it becomes obvious to everyone (except them) that there's absolutely no grounding for their position. That's not so much making them see reason as uprooting weird logic until they have nothing left say that sounds even remotely reasonable. Sad that it comes to that sometimes. --Ludwigs2 19:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Tell you what, I'm interesting in collaborating with you whenever possible and useful. I gotta run, so I'll make more appropriate comments whenever I can. For the time being, just wanted to extend my appreciation for your efforts. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Burden

Thinking more about the Burden issues, particularly in relation to attribution. It comes up in different contexts, which would be another reason to have a nice essay about it. In addition to V, it seems central to the ASF debate going on at Pseudoscience, where QG feels the burden is on others to show his claim is disputed and therefore requires attribution, as opposed to you, who think the statements needs to be shown to have broader support in order to not attribute it. It's an interesting difference of approaches. QG's methods errs because it allows weak statements that happen to have sourcing to be presented overbroad; its strength is that it requires contesting editors to 'prove it' with their own source. Then again, this is not always easy; for example, where will you find a source that says 'pseudoscience is not a public safety threat'. So, in that case, the burden does seem to be on QG to bolster the generality of his claim with more sources. A fair question he might ask is, how many? How many cites would show that this was generally accepted and could be stated directly. Just thinking... Oh, also, ScienceApologist/JPS invoked Wikipedia:ITA#In-text_attribution as an alternative to ASF. Clever, less strong than NPOV policy, but along the same lines. Also, more reason i'd like to do some work on WP:ATTRIBUTION. Ocaasi (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Burden

You seem to have cleaned up here, so maybe these updates are better put elsewhere. But anyway, more in the annals of WP:BURDEN. Ocaasi (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

ah, no. I just have the bot archive everything after a while, and I haven't been doing much on project in the last bit (real life intervenes...). I do need to write that essay, though; maybe I'll do that this evening. Unfortnately, Burden of proof and Burden of evidence already exists as redirects - I'll need to look into co-opting one of them for my purposes. --Ludwigs2 01:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they really covered that (burden, burden of proof, burden of evidence, proveit, bop, onus... they got onus!). How about WP:WHOSEBURDEN, WP:WHOSERESPONSIBILITY, and WP:WHOSE? Ocaasi (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Original research is a serious issue

The response grow up is not an appropriate response to WP:OR problems you started. You agreed to me more civil in the future. Do you have a reliable source for your rewrite. You claimed on the talk page that editors should use a reliable source but you replaced a journal without a source. Can you give a reason for deleting a reliable source and replacing it without any sources. QuackGuru (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The response you got was because you templated me, which was childish. Don't do that. To your substantive point, I removed your citation because (as I said in the edit summary, and in several places on the talk page), you are misusing the source to support a claim the source does not explicitly make (not to mention using a minor source to support a valid claim that is better represented by a strong source like the NSF). What I wrote is perfectly in line with the NSF's approach to pseudoscience; do you take issue with that? --Ludwigs2 18:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What you wrote is unsourced. We have a journal available that is reliable. You did not provide WP:V or a better source than the journal. I could not find a journal that mentioned NSF. If you continue to add OR you could be warned again. The text you disagree with is supported by source. You are making excuses to delete a relaible source. You did not show on the talk page how to more accurately summarise the source. Please stop deleting sourced text for no good reason. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

QG, templating regular users is uncivil. Ludwigs is about as regular as it gets, so you have no grounds to put up boilerplate instead of just explaining your argument. If you hypothetically bring the incident to another venue, all you need is diffs, not templates; this isn't WP:AIV, so please don't act like it. Though you're obviously in disagreement with recent changes at Pseudoscience, Chiropractic, and Vertebral Artery Dissection, I think this approach will add to the appearance of a tendentious editing style (though in pursuit of well-intentioned ends). I'm not sure how to say this without it sounding threatening, but I think if you keep doing things like this, it is more likely to lead to sanctions of some kind than the resolutions you want. That's not 'a warning' from me, just my read on the situation.

As for sources, although WP:V buts the burden on those who want to include information if challenged, just because you have a source doesn't mean your source fits the context or is appropriate for the statements being made. A poorly sourced version is not inherently better than an unsourced version. Although we live and die by verifiability, we are not held in the tyranny of the sources we have; rather, we have access to the full range of text that is supportable by reliable sources. Are you asking for a source to verify the NSF claim? It might not be in PubMed, since the assertions being made here are not clearly subject to WP:MEDRS. Ocaasi (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The source is the NSF's annual report, which user:BullRangifer made such a stink about in a different context a few months back. I'll need to look it up, but they have an entire section dedicated to pseudoscience and its relation to public education, and use pretty much the definition of pseudoscience that I presented.

The Hurt article suffers on several fronts: (1) it's specifically geared towards medical issues, which damages its generalizability, (2) it's relatively recent, and so can't pretend to full acceptance even by the medical community, and (3) it's the production of a single author, whereas the NSF report is a collaborative and heavily vetted publication that can most assuredly be taken as broadly representative of scientific opinion.

Ludwig- an excellent point on the difference between the production of a single author and a collaborative and heavily vetted publication. I hope you dont mind that I have used (stolen) this same reasoning to support my view on a different issue in a discussion at WP:FTN. Regards Puhlaa (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And Ocaasi - let him hang himself. He knows I'm simply waiting until he gets in my face sufficiently that I can justify opening an RFC/U or a new community ban discussion on him. Or if he doesn't know that, he should. After the last time he ought to have the common sense to be on his best behavior with me. Some people never learn. --Ludwigs2 21:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwig. Just saying, if your edit was based off the NFS source, then why the hell don't you simply cite the NFS right next to your text. (I haven't checked the sources in detail, so I won't comment on them) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwig. You wrote "I'll need to look it up". If you need to look it up how then is the text you added sourced to NSF. I think a reliable journal is more reliable than the NSF website. Did you delete the journal because you have a disagreement with the sourced text. Do you agree in the future that you will not replace sourced text with unsourced text like this again. See WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Enric: because I often work from memory (my memory is excellent), I didn't think the revision would be contentious (and in fact, no one has objected to it in the couple of whatevers since I made it), and I confess to being lazy as hell. here's the link to the PDF versions of the 2010 report [2] - chapter 7 is the one you want. you can also work through the HTML version [3], though navigating that is a bit of a chore. I haven't read through the 2010 version yet, I don't think (I believe 2009 was the most current the last time I looked at this), but it should be similar since it's revised from year to year rather rewritten each time..

@ QG: as I said, my memory is excellent; far superior to my industriousness. remember, the hallmark here is verifiability, not verification.

@ Puhlaa - have at it, with my blessing. --Ludwigs2 22:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwig. Your memory is not verifiable. QuackGuru (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@ QG again: (sorry, missed a point) We could have a debate about whether a peer reviewed journal is more reliable than an NSF publication, but I think you'd lose on two points. first (as I said) your peer reviewed journal is specific to medical issues, whereas the article in question is pseudoscience more generally put. that reduces its reliability with respect to the article in question. second, the article you are advocating is much closer to primary research than the NSF report, which is clearly a secondary source. Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources to primary research. clear enough?

and my memory doesn't need to be verifiable; the information that I put in the encyclopedia does. go read the links I provided. --Ludwigs2 22:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

---

So, that's it? a half a day of bluster, and then you go *poof* when I point out the flaws in your argument? QG, if you're not going to have the grace to admit you were wrong, at least have the wisdom to think things through before you go off half-cocked. --Ludwigs2 17:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration sanctions warning: Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to pseudoscience if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision.

This warning concerns your comment here about a pseudoscience-related arbitration enforcement request. Accusing others of "presenting a prime example of the kind of myopic, self-entitled chauvinism ..." is a personal attack and is not acceptable.  Sandstein  19:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning noted, but please do not mix modalities. the arbitration page is not 'a page broadly related to pseudoscience' - it is an administrative page specifically designed to discuss user behavior. speech is conventionally a bit stronger and looser on such pages.

I will take your notice as a civility warning and give it the respect it is due. If you really want it to be more than that (i.e., really want to invoke the general sanctions), say so and I will open a new ArbCom clarification request on the issue. --Ludwigs2 19:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The sanction does not apply to pages related to pseudoscience, but to editors working on such pages, which includes you. It is certainly applicable, and I intend to apply it if required, to misconduct in a pseudoscience-related AE discussions.  Sandstein  20:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't become an issue, and I trust that if you get to the point where decide to apply sanctions they will probably be deserved. I just prefer clarity on things like this. but no sense dragging it out. --Ludwigs2 20:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Attack? no, that was an observation, nothing more. I will not put up with the kind of crap I got from Ronz the last time I worked on this article, and I want him to be aware of that fact.

In other words, mind your own business. --Ludwigs2 07:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, sorry - you were complaining about that?!??!? please, don't make me laugh... --Ludwigs2 07:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ludwigs2: (i) Your comment was addressed directly to me, so is most certainly my business. (ii) As I was the one citing the use of "the term in the way a wide range of WP:RSs", your "you and I both know that it's possible (intentionally or unintentionally) to use reliable sources to present a skewed version of a topic" comment was either (a) an (unsubstantiated) accusation against me or (b) irrelevant. (iii) I don't know who this Ronz person is and don't care. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the Ronz thing way my mistake (because I used a bit strong language with him, and I feel guilty about it - psychological projection).

With respect to the actual issue, you are drastically misconstruing both the tone and content of my statement (which was a simple observation about something that happens - intentionally or unintentionally - on a daily basis on wikipedia). I'm sorry you feel that way, but I think your complaint is unfounded, and I have no intention whatsoever in crediting it with any legitimacy. Everyone on Wikipedia should be able to entertain the notion that they themselves have made an error of fact or judgement on any particular topic; that is an essential part of proper consensus discussions. Claiming that it is uncivil of me to remind you of that fact tends to imply that you are unwilling to entertain that notion about your own beliefs, which is entirely not my problem. --Ludwigs2 07:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

P.s. do not template me again - I find that rude, and will delete templates on sight, without comment. express your concerns in your own words, please. --Ludwigs2 07:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, if you're going to warn other editors over civility, could you please practice it yourself? Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: nobody on Wikipedia should be required "to entertain the notion that they themselves have made an error of fact or judgement" unless and until somebody provides evidence substantiating that "notion". You want me to "express your concerns in your own words, please." My "words" are "put up or shut up". Put up reliable sources supporting your definition of 'Intelligent Design' or drop the issue. Put up evidence substantiating that I "use[d] reliable sources to present a skewed version of a topic", or drop the issue (if you didn't believe that "a skewed version of a topic" was being presented, then why on Earth did you raise the issue?). Cla68: (i) the warning was over WP:NPA, not WP:CIVIL. (ii) "Could you please" stop following me everywhere repeating your spurious complaints. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

hrafn: bullshit. policy is not designed or intended to excuse editors from thought, common sense, or basic reason. You are not 'required' to use thought, common sense, or reason in your application of policy, obviously, but should you choose not to you lose the privilege of being taken seriously.

Cla68: I can handle this tawdriness without too much effort, and I prefer if people do not use my talk page to continue arguments they are having elsewhere. Unless you have something substantive that needs to be added, it's best if you let me ice this out on my own. --Ludwigs2 14:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, if you look at my talk page archives, you'll see that in the past I have been subjected to attempted bullying and intimidation by regulars at the Intelligent Design article. As a result, I have little tolerance when it looks like other editors involved with that topic appear to be reverting to similar behavior. I had thought that that type of behavior had ceased, but apparently not. If you say that you can handle it by yourself, I believe you. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not unaccustomed to this - you should look at some of my talk page archives. I swear, I never thought editing wikipedia would involve lessons I learned from reading the Three Little Pigs. --Ludwigs2 23:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

ID is, arguably, among the most notorious articles for having serious NPOV and editor conduct problems that have continued for years and have resulted in at least one arbitration case. The only reason, I think, that the problems haven't been resolved is that not enough editors care enough about ID as a topic to jump in and NPOV the article and deal once and for all with the conduct of the article's regulars. Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

History of the U.S.

Oh my goodness! There I was praising you and DV to the skies over at Talk:Intelligent design, and here I find you embroiled in all kinds of wiki-drama. Oh, well, again, I think you're right. And brave.

This has nothing to do with improving WP. (Unless you want to count being pleasant to and appreciative of an admirable editor so he'll hang around.) I'm a history buff and love to discuss politics. If you don't care to, that's fine. This is a tangent from two of your comments at ID.

Just as an aside, one of the more interesting things about the formation of the US political system is that it is pretty much the first time in history that a political system was conceived that didn't rely on people being good, honorable, noble, far-thinking, or idealistic. It's a dirty, crappy, rotten, misbegotten little system that works as well as it does because it is flagrantly and self-admittedly dirty, crappy, and rotten.

I assume that means you admire the check and balance system? I can't help but see Madison and Jefferson and Franklin and Washington as honorable and far-thinking. (Jefferson honorable not in every particular but wrt a sincere desire to create a decent, fair, working government.) There was some idealism, some noble thoughts and deeds, and overall it was a "good" bunch of men, again wrt to creating a stable government. You're talking about their having no illusions about Americans being a noble bunch, but knew they and we, like all humans, will do as much as we think we can get away with. Yes?

"Misbegotten." Does that refer to the failed Articles of Confederation and the unauthorized writing of the Constitution?

Plus, western scientific logic began explicitly as a means of wrenching our understanding of the world out of the hands of Christian dogma;

My take on the Enlightenment was that after scientific (empirical) thought and the scientific method were developed, Christian dogma appeared illogical. Would it be more accurate to say it's quick growth, not its beginning, was due to a means...etc.? I'd agree the French Revolution was about overthrowing Christendom.

This is just for fun, probably shouldn't even be on your talk page. You could email me....or ignore me. :) Regards, Yopienso (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I love conversations like this, and if someone wants to complain about me gabbing on my own talk page - piffle on them.

And really, it's not my wikidrama. Sometime I need to be the stone of reason on which waves of angry rhetoric break. And sometimes I just get pissed off and give someone a piece of my mind. it's a crapshoot as to which is which. &

I wouldn't say that I admire the checks and balances system (except for its brilliance as an idea). The constitution was a committee decision, with a lot of the flaws that tend to creep into committee decisions; what saved it is that it was spearheaded by people who had taken the time to learn and understand history and philosophy, and were both smart and practical about it. The check and balance system itself couldn't have been better conceived - given 18th century understanding of human nature - as a solution to the problems of liberal government. It's just that understandings of human behavior have moved on, and the C&B system hasn't. The main problem with it from a modern perspective is that it doesn't just derail bad political behavior, it institutionalizes the bad political behavior that it derails. you can see that in the creation story saga, if you look over time: Christian teachings were gradually leeched out of the public school system in a process that started well before the Scopes trial, and Christians tried a whole bunch of savory, upright, and correct political/legal approaches to retaining or restoring it in schools. They failed at every turn, because of what they perceived as unjustified interference from the federal government and other forms of political chicanery; is it any wonder that some group of Christians eventually gave up their political idealism and went over to the dark side?

and it's only misbegotten because it it blends Hobbes' cynicism with Locke's rationalism (and a whole bunch of acute but naive psychologism) to produce a very curious offspring. Frankenstein had nothing on the tripartite governance system.

With respect to science and Christianity... well... The Christian church from early on cast itself as didactically authoritative (probably a legacy of being spread across Europe by fiat of Roman emperors), and their claim to authority lay in a claim to exclusive access to higher truth. However, Europe started to move away from an agricultural towards a commercial society, and commercial societies do two things that agricultural societies don't: they foster increases in technology, and they start looking outside their local region for new products to buy and sell. Technology and innovation is a source of knowledge that the church doesn't control (and even today you find that technologically inclined people tend to be agnostically self-willed); world exploration brings in detailed knowledge of different lands and different cultures, with the inevitable reduction of Christian knowledge from 'THE' truth to 'A' truth. You can see the strain on the Church well back into the 15th century as they tried to reign in a progressively more independent middle class and figure out how to incorporate alien peoples and ideas from halfway around the globe into their doctrine. Science was just the tip of the iceberg; an outgrowth of individuals trying to make sense of the mass of new sociological information, and outcompeting each other to make new technological developments. It wasn't until the 18th century that science started to take off and push the Church to the background, and maybe the mid 19th century before science actually stood up as a source of knowledge independent of Church and God (which is - not coincidentally - also the time you start to see biblical literalism and Christian fundamentalism come into its own).

The French revolution wasn't specifically about Christianity: It was a democratic revolution in the same vein as the American revolution. The French had their own brilliant spearheads, but unfortunately the French had one thing that the Americans lacked: hordes of illiterate, oppressed, and very, very angry peasants. best laid plans...

oh, and thinkers were chipping away at Christian doctrine long before the formal inception of science (think about Galileo), and no one has yet managed to create a 'scientific method' (though it's a common belief system that such a thing exists). just FYI. --Ludwigs2 04:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

{{wasr psh}} and {{wasr ssh}}

{{wasr psh}} and {{wasr ssh}} are nominated for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_24#Template:Wasr_psh. If you still want them, could you please document them?? No-one has a clue what they are for if there is no documentation. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Err... Those pages were created and edited solely by NE2 (talk · contribs) - I'm not sure why you've posted this message here. Also, they are clearly templates used for transcluding state highway sign images, most likely as part of a meta-template for state highway infoboxes. I'd check with NE2 first, just to make sure you don't break some other templates by deleting this. --Ludwigs2 17:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoa... I don't know how I managed to notify the wrong person. I'll post again at NE2's talk page. Sorry about that. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I used your definition of pseudoscience as the only proposed definition for the science section in the bad faith article

I used the modified version of your definition of pseudoscience as the ONLY proposed definition for the pseudoscience section in the bad faith article. I seem to be the only one making positive edits to that article. If you still like the definition, please WP:bold it in to the bad faith article from the talk page here[4]. Your additional positive contributions to that article would be appreciated. Be WP:Bold! HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for help

I noticed you made a substantial comment to my section at pseudoscience. I will not get to it until tomorrow, since your lengthy articles are usually full of substantive content, and require me to make a POV shift to finally get it, so they take me time to absorb and process and respond to. In the meantime, could you do a quick read of edits I made on bad faith, which are intended for typical lay people, and tell me if they are clear and easy to read and understand, so I can shift writing styles if I am being too technical? HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Letter to The Economist January 29th–February 4th 2011

The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist.[5] -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

<sigh...> I wish I could say he wasn't right. I also wish it could be phrased better. And I also wish a supermodel would stop by my house tonight, just on a whim. And most sad of all, the last seems like the most probable of the three. --Ludwigs2 01:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You might like this

I don't have access to this[6], but I thought you might be interested in it. PPdd (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for taking the time to wade through the TM talk page discussion and to then to post your informed opinions on my AE appeal.(olive (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

No problem. I've been on that particular railroad before, and I hate seeing others subjected to it. --Ludwigs2 02:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Which railroad is that? As far as WP:AE goes, could you please put future comments in your own section? You've written more in "my section" than I have. ;)   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll answer the first question if you really want to hear it (I can't decide whether you would or not - you seem like a decent sort, all things considered). As to the other, I think I've made my point clear, so unless the discussion starts to progress in a fruitful direction I don't know that I'll have all that much more to say. Mostly I'm waiting for NuclearWarfare to chime in - he's the one I really should be having this discussion with. but somehow I don't think he'll say anything more.

If he doesn't, than I'll ask for someone else to lift the ban as senseless, and what happens after that is what happens. --Ludwigs2 06:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am curious about your railroading, as it seems to be related to your involvement in this appeal.

Feel free to keep commenting. But I think it'd be better if "my section" was mostly my postings.   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead an made my own section for further responses.

With respect to railroading... Ok, I've had at least seven or eight distinct editors do the exact same routine to me over the years - almost always skeptics. The first few times I didn't understand it, and I ended up with a number of blocks; then I learned.

The heart of the routine is to craft the impression that the target (being me or whomever) is being uncivil and violating policy, regardless of actual behavior. There are a few variants, but mostly it involves the following:

• one or two editors working on the article, where almost every talk page comment or edit summary contains some claim that the target is doing something against policy, or some warning to that effect. The claims don't need to have any basis in fact: they are made so that when administrator attention arrives at some later point they can make long lists of diffs to show people (on the assumption no one will really look into them too much). Common ones are:
  • A hypersensitivity to anything that can in any way be morphed into an insult, which are then loudly and repeatedly claimed to be uncivil
  • Loud and frequent accusations of POV-pushing
  • Alphabet soup policy bombs, with no clear referent and an overtly threatening tone (e.g. "That edit was against wp:OR, wp:SYN, wp:V; continued violations of that sort will result in being blocked.")
• a couple of editors who appear out of nowhere to make random, stupid, or contentious edits in order to try to goad the target into an edit war. It might be on that page, or on pages worked on in the past. my favorite example is a dispute I had once with one editor: about four days after it started (and all within about 12 hours of each other), I had one unrelated editor co-opt an ANI thread to start attacking me, and three other pages I'd worked on in the past - all of which had been dormant for months - suddenly had different editors pop in to make contentious changes that I had specifically argued against.
• A consistent string of mild insults, supercilious comments, or straight out whines about how they are being disrespected (none of which for some reason never attract admin attention or action), usually combined with proclamations of their own prowess as editors. This is a simple tactic to gain sympathy as embattled victims.

The overall effect is to try to build and sell an emotional argument that the target is a bad, aggressive editor who needs to be controlled immediately so that good but harassed editors can get on with decent editing. Generally the goal is to find some admin who either sympathizes already or who is naive enough to be convinced that rapid action actually is needed, so that the target will get sanctioned quickly and without too much reflection. Further, the whole process is designed to destroy the target's reputation on-project so that they have no real way of talking themselves back into good graces - they are forever branded as a bad editor. the net result is that the target begins getting progressively more unfair treatment from admins (as Olive is - I think - getting now). That's the railroad I'm talking about.

Now, I think this kind of tactic has a lot of tacit acceptance because it was originally used to fight real fringe advocates and drive them off-project. I'm not saying I approve of it as a tactic even for that purpose, but I can understand. But now it's used on editors such as myself and Olive to clear out people who try to moderate skeptical POV editing, and that's not good. I've learned how to cope with it, mostly (though I'll admit that some of my ways of coping with it are not pleasant for anyone involved), but it pisses me off to see it happen to others. It pisses me off doubly because I suspect half of the people involved with the process are unaware that they are complicit in giving someone the shaft - they're just random participants who happen to play into the gambit, or who have been accidentally trained into believing that this is appropriate wikipedia behavior. We've set up an unconscious double-standard on the project; I don't like that double-standard, and I'm inclined to poke holes in it every place I see it. So now do you see why I'm involving myself with this?

I'll be curious to see what you make of this. --Ludwigs2 09:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for recounting that history. I can understand why you've felt frustrated. As regards to this TM case, I think I'd be safe to say that many of the bothersome behaviors you list above have been seen there but have been exhibited by the "pro-" side more than any other. The "alphabet soup" is just a factor of time at Wikipedia, I'm afraid.

Olive has been warned amply. Some folks are what they are, and it doesn't matter how much you tell them to act differently they will stay true to form. That's admirable in some respects, but it may mean that they don't fit into a collegial project.

As for the rest, it's not necessary to get into the details or re-fight past battles. Let's just try to keep our aim on improving the encyclopedia.   Will Beback  talk  10:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - that's actually part of a theory of knowledge, and worth plugging through Santayana's original tome to understand the context. I'm more than happy to move forward, but I suspect I will be back at these crossroads sooner or later because it's in my nature to remember and remind people of where things have gone wrong before. As I've said, I have no bones with anyone in this matter, but I am uncomfortably aware of the evident selective memory process that fuels it. --Ludwigs2 17:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Subsection for fladrif

Everything you requested[7] in terms of links and diffs concerning the TM ArbCom and prior related AE sanctions is readily available at the TM ArbCom Archive including at the Evidence and Workshop pages and their associated talk pages. Fladrif (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fladrif, first off, you should have posted this over at the enforcement page. It's probably best you didn't, though, because I just spent 10 minutes skimming through those pages, and found them very unhelpful.

• There was no proof of COI or statements by Olive that she worked for TM that I could find - only a rather extensive effort by several editors to assert that she had a COI.
• There were no specific sanctions or admonishments given to Olive before NW's actions, just the general assertions of the arbitration, which apply equally to everyone.
• There's nothing there that applies to any of my other questions or points at all.

Really, what I need you to give me are specific diffs that show these sanctions, admonishments, or COI admissions/rulings as they apply to Olive. Just generally pointing at the page is useful in a broad sense, but doesn't serve to support your claims. --Ludwigs2 18:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC

Agree with you, I should not have put the analysis in the statement. I have changed it two simple sentences. If you are not satisfied, pls edit my RFC statement. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Captain Occam (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've commented, but in the future don't add me as an involved party where I am not. I'm get in enough situations on my own without getting dragged into yours.

I'm serious: do it again, and I'll ask an admin to warn you about it formally. --Ludwigs2 23:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I’m sorry if I made a mistake about this. I should let you know that I had a lot of trouble deciding whether I ought to add you as an involved party or not, and if so whether there was anyone else I should add. I re-read both of the threads in question, the one in Jimbo's user talk and the one on the Town Sheriff talk page, and other than me you seemed to be the person who was most actively involved in those discussions. If you’d decided you didn't want to make a statement, I would’ve been okay with that—my adding you was only because of your participation in the discussions where I was allegedly violating my topic ban. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Occam: I don't mind commenting on things like this, so it's fine if you point them out to me, but you have a tendency to go a bit overboard. Just don't make my involvement in things is more than it actually is, that's all. --Ludwigs2 00:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

TfD notice

Hi, {{content fork}} is up for deletion by TfD. -DePiep (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ludwigs2 23:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Good I saw the "don't template me" notice in time. ;-) -DePiep (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol - that wouldn't apply to this. I just have had a bunch of editors who ought to know better hitting me with me with dumb warning templates - "Your edit at blahblah constitutes blahblahblah, and if you continue you may be banned, blocked or fed to hungry crocodiles!!!" I mean really, what's up with that? If they can't talk to me like a real human being, then I just mark their Hallmark-cards-from-the-dark-side return to sender. --Ludwigs2 00:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, kept me sharp to write what I wanted to write here. I do believe there is a template that has blahblah by default. That is what en.wiki is heading. -DePiep (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Lovely idea. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

[8] BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Olive's topic ban

I withdrew from following the Olive AE appeal because I was confused about whether she ought to be banned. I think the ban needs more exhaustively revisited, but I now see that the thread has been closed. I wonder if you would be interested in reopening it, perhaps in a few weeks or alternatively very soon? I was disappointed that your cogent arguments received little attention. AGK [•] 15:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I would have (I was annoyed that that the thread was closed on procedural grounds without discussing the merits of the ban) but I'm not familiar enough with arb-level conventions to know whether it's acceptable to do that, or if it should be moved to a different noticeboard (such as clarification), or whether I should just email my concerns directly to the committee. It's a bit uncomfortable facing down a handful of admins whom I have good reason to believe are wrong and suspect are acting out of bias. would the correct move be to reopen it there? --Ludwigs2 18:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to, with the consent of Olive, submit a second appeal to AE. Ordinarily, "re-appeals" can only go through ArbCom unless a considerable period of time has elapsed since the last appeal; but as there was no clear consensus either way upon the appeal being closed, and as it was simply closed as stale, I think we're fine to proceed here without involving the arbitrators. As you were the administrator who was most actively in support of Olive, would you like to do it? Or would you prefer that I or Olive did? Oh, and I hope you don't view me as one of the admins who "are wrong and [were] acting out of bias" :P! Regards, AGK [•] 23:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Uhhh... I'd happily do it, and I'm sure Olive would approve (I'll leave a note in her talk), but I ought to point out that I am not a sysop. I sometimes consider filing an RfA, but I haven't so far because I anticipate a tremendous amount of wikidrama when I do - I've had a few knock-down-drag-outs with some well-established editors, who will likely see to it that many, many unkind words are spoken about me. Can I reopen it as a normal editor? --Ludwigs2 23:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Cochrane and EBM

I'm fascinated by your commentary on evidence based medicine and on the POV of the Cochrane Collab. I was wondering. They seem rather harshly exclusionary in their approach to rating scientific research. Canter and Ernst, high-profile champions of evidence-based med, similarly seem to have a hard-edged POV regarding meditation and other complementary therapies, which may be partially explained by their apparent ties to Big Pharma. David Orme-Johnson, in his reply to their negative assessment of the research on Transcendental Meditation and hypertension (much of which, as you may know, has been conducted cooperatively with researchers at centres of research at arm’s length from the TM organization, and published in peer-reviewed journals), notes the ties of Canter and Ernst to the pharmaceutical industry—they sit on the editorial board of the journal FACT, which is published by Pharmaceutical Press, associated with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and, “supported by the multi-billion dollar hypertensive medication industry.” BTW, I much appreciated your refreshingly fair analysis of the very thin case against Olive, and the harshness of the judgement in her case. Early morning person (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I avoid asserting COI type things unless there's a real reason to do so. The Cochrane people, as far as I can tell, are a somewhat more sophisticated version of QuackWatch with a dedication to good research but a specific bias against alternative medicine that drives their research. I tend to trust Cochrane's results, but they need to be taken as a group that has a political agenda that they are pushing. yes, they probably have some connections to the drug industry, and yes, the drug industry probably approves of what they do for commercial reasons, but I don't think there's anything particularly nefarious about it. simple truism: no matter what anyone does, someone somewhere is going to approve of it. that's usually not a sign of conspiracy. --Ludwigs2 19:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

An admirably balanced view. You are a very fair-minded individual.Early morning person (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

lol - 98% of the time, yes. the other 2% I'm an absolute bear. --Ludwigs2 22:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"Ahem"

closing a silly discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
for the most part I think admins do an admirable job, though there are places where they goof up or get tangled in their own nonsense (<...ahem...>). [9] What does the term "ahem" mean in this context?   Will Beback  talk  08:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC) ...what would you like it to mean? It's not really in my nature to be subtle in speech, you know. If I have something to say, I say it directly, even pointedly. If I'm not speaking directly, it's safe to assume that I'm just mucking around with some random inward moment of art or humor. Did that 'ahem' offend you, and if so, why? --Ludwigs2 08:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC) It mystified me, as I am not used to seeing it used in writing. What did you intend it to mean?   Will Beback  talk  09:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC) <shrug> Nothing, really... --Ludwigs2 09:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Hmm, Ludwigs2 is it your habit to add material to Wikipedia that means nothing? We have quite a few of those editors, I hadn't previously thought of you as one of them.Franamax (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC) <rofl> Yopienso (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC) No, it's my habit not to indulge pointed questions. Either Will knows exactly what I meant (in which case point made, nothing further to say) or he has no clue (in which case there's no point in discussing if further). If he has something he wants to say he can man up and say it directly. --Ludwigs2 17:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Either Will knows exactly what I meant (in which case point made, nothing further to say) If I knew I wouldn't be asking. Let me ask you again: what did you mean? You said before that you meant nothing, but now you seem to be saying that you did intend something. If you are trying to convey some message then I'd ask you to state it directly rather than through innuendo.   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC) ...or he has no clue (in which case there's no point in discussing if further). If you have a problem or concern, Will, say what it is. If you don't have a problem or concern, I don't either, so why are we talking about this? --Ludwigs2 22:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC) I told you my concern, that you are making an innuendo. Your comments here seem to confirm that. Please state clearly what you meant by that comment or, if it meant nothing, refactor it.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC) I guess this is the kind of unhelpful talk page behavior that a WP:SHERIFF would have the power to redact.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Must read (if you haven't already)

You're above this, since you use much bigger words than almost anyone (including myself, which I take offense to as an SAT tutor). Nonetheless, it's a really frickin' good article, even though I find the gender topic to be a bit hackneyed at times : http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/wikipedia-this-is-a-mans-world-2206207.html .Ocaasi (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, BeCritical linked me that article a few threads above, and yeah, I think it's great (and no, I don't think I'm above that - I actually wish that simple, direct journalistic writing came more naturally to me). That being said, I think you're the first person I've ever met who suffers from vocabulary envy. Interesting... I wonder what Freud would say about that? --Ludwigs2 00:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, don't we all wish we could be more pedestrian. Damn you little words! So, efficient, so non-circumlocutory. My penchant for synonyms was an early fetish. I believe it's what the merely above-average do to feel less threatened by actual genius. Why buy the whole car when you can just get the rims instead? Ghetto braggadocio. Lexicographical bling. Shiny. Pretty. Ocaasi (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see: a clear case of verbo-syllabic fixation, which is often marked by a sado-masochistic relationship to split infinitives. Tell me, do you find you have particularly intense, uncontrollable emotions around dangling participles? <smirk>

there's the other side, too, though, which I am occasionally guilty of myself: hefty words used to carry tiny, tiny, tiny thoughts. Or as I might put it after a couple of beers (and a dare): cornucopias of omphalocentric erudition laden on inconsequential minutiae. Two beers only, though; no one can even think the words 'omphalocentric erudition' on their third beer. --Ludwigs2 02:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

See, you did it again. Omphalocentric. Now I need a dictionary. And a new hobby. Ocaasi (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"Navel-gazing". Sorry, I was in the 98 percentile on the GRE verbals, and that was before graduate study. Think of it as one of those idiot savant things (as I do), and don't let it get to you. --Ludwigs2 05:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:WQA

Has a mention of you at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ludwigs2 Collect (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Close an RfC?

Hey Ludwigs2,

I'm looking for an uninvolved admin to review an RfC we've had on Elizabeth II. I'm mulling over bringing this topic to informal mediation, and wanted to get a third opinion before doing so. If you have a moment to look over, comment, and close the RfC, I'd be most grateful.

I'm running this request by you SlimVirgin, and Sandstein.

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Slim took care of it. NickCT (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

ok. --Ludwigs2 19:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Joshua P. Schroeder

Given the history of harassment and incivility by and against this editor, I felt your comments were inappropriate and removed them. My apologies if you feel I overstepped in my refactoring. Go ahead and use your best judgement in how to respond. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In the future I'd prefer it if you asked me to redact rather than redacting me directly, but it's not a matter of great consequence. I'll also point out that SA (err... JPS) and I had been getting along fairly well for months prior to his getting in trouble, and that I had little to nothing to do with the mess he landed in. The 'history' you're talking about is bordering on 'ancient history'. I don't generally hold grudges - though I do learn from experience - and as a rule when people stop attacking me conflicts disappear. --Ludwigs2 18:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well since you say this I think you should refactor JPS's name from the talk page of WP:Town sheriff. As you are aware this editor is blocked for a year and cannot defend himself, never mind there is no good reason to be mentioning him there. So if you would refactor, and I mean remove, comments about this editor I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

JPS has a long and extremely well-documented history of every one of these actions. There is nothing contentious about this at all, it's merely descriptive and in no way constitutes an attack on him, and it is a perfect example of what I see as a systemic problem on wikipedia. If he didn't want to be used as an example of problematic behavior, then he should not have put such an excessive amount of effort into being an example of the problematic behavior I want to talk about.

Frankly Crohnie (and I hope you will forgive me a moment of honest anger), I am getting tired of this. I have never sock-puppetted, never baited someone in an effort to get them blocked, never engaged in a tenth of the personal attacks and disruptive behavior that JPS has done (which is astonishing, considering how stubborn and pointed I can be when I want), and I have always tried my best to be rational, reasonable, and fair with both people and topics (which is not remotely the case with JPS). I even try to be fair to him, despite the fact that he's been complicit in gaming me into getting at least three blocks (and trying to get me blocked at least five other times, which I dodged). JPS makes me look like frigging Mahatma Gandhi, and yet people treat him like some goddamned benighted tragic hero whose reputation must be defended, while they bust my chops endlessly over every tiny little thing they can dredge out of my three years of history. To hell with that. I am not going to beat JPS over the head with it, and if he wants to come back to the project and play nice I'll deal with him fairly and let bygones be bygones, as I was trying to do before he got blocked this last time. but I feel perfectly entitled to use his obvious, extensive, and endlessly documented crapulent behavior as as an example of what is wrong with this screwed up project.

So yes, there is a good reason to use him as an example there; and no, I will not refactor it. I'm happy to discuss this further - here, or in a public forum if you prefer - but you're going to have to use some better argument than 'we ought to be polite to him', because to date no one has ever suggested that it would be polite to stop talking far more stupid (and far less relevant) crap about me, and I can't see one single reason why I should make my reasoned argument weaker out of some sense of politeness that apparently few people think I deserve in turn. --Ludwigs2 18:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to anger you like this. Just for the record, this request was my idea, not anyone else. JPS did not contact me to get this refactored which it sounds like you think has happened so I want to make that clear that this is not the case. I try to be fair to everyone myself and also polite. I don't think it's fair to talk about someone like you did when they cannot defend or comment themselves about what you are saying. What you say about JPS is your opinion and yes others do hold the same opinion and others do not. I don't know what got JPS blocked this last time since I haven't checked into it and to be honest I don't plan to waste my time doing so. All I was asking was to remove his name. You can make the same points without naming any editors since there are a lot of editors that fit into the points you were making. You are asking for the Town sheriff to be accepted as a policy or guideline but the problem I am having with it is that you are having troubles keeping yourself civil during all the discussions. Why is that? Again I'm sorry to have angered you about this but I still believe you should refactor out names of editors. Have a good day, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my burst of anger. let me sit a bit with the thought about removing his name and leaving it anonymous. As I said, it weakens the argument - no one can actually look at the behavior and see it for themselves if it's anonymous - but maybe that would be alright. honestly I don't really see how he could object to it even if he weren't blocked, since the behavior is all well documented in ANI and ArbCom cases. He could try to justify his behavior, of course (as he did at ArbCom and ANI), but it's the justification of the problematic behavior as useful that's the issue in the first place, so I don't see that there's any worry there, either. but let me consider it.

With respect to my not being civil - I'm not sure what you're referring to. Can you give me an example? I know that I am handing out some bitter pills - as I keep saying to people, this is a new and difficult concept, and not everyone will understand it straight-out. many people will need to wait to see it in action, because explanations will simply not suffice in some cases. Is it uncivil of me to explain to someone that they are not understanding a concept, and that they should stop beating their head against it until they can get a concrete example? I do understand that I have a context problem - I'm used to explaining ideas to students and other academics: people who are flexible on the idea that they might misunderstand. normal people are much less inclined to accept the thought that they might be wrong about something, which is fine because normal people will generally sit back skeptically and wait to be convinced. However, when I have someone like Will who engages in a protracted argument from misconception (i.e., he clearly doesn't understand the underlying principles of the model, yet keeps arguing from a perspective that makes no sense either in terms of the model itself or in terms of some competing model, and refuses to engage concrete examples), what can I do except point out that s/he doesn't understand and should step back and wait for a concrete case? There's no use in endlessly explaining the same points that failed to sink in the last time, and there are only so many different ways I can frame the issue in the hopes of it sinking in.

Again, seriously, some example of incivility would be useful here. what I see is me trying to explain a difficult concept, failing to get it across, and then having to explain in fairly strong terms that we should wait until a concrete demonstration can be arranged. I understand that annoys people, but I don't see it as uncivil and I don't see any way around it. --Ludwigs2 19:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok here are a couple of examples where I think you are over the top in your behavior. Here you could have made the same points without the personal commentary you make., again too personal, no need for that, remember talk about the text not the editor plus you forget to assume good faith, & this one is really uncivil in my opinion. Basically what I see is you talking about the need for a town sheriff to control misbehavior but when someone, anyone disagrees or asks you questions it seems to get personal with you. I believe it was Franamax that questioned this too. Now as far as I am aware, you and I haven't had any kind of fallouts or disagreements, correct me if I'm wrong. I just think you need to evaluate your way of talking to other editors. You can be direct all you like, I think I'm being direct now, but I'm not being rude or personal about things. Well got to go, RL calling. I hope this helps. Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

hunh - looks like the stylesheet server went down for a bit - very weird...

at any rate, all I can say is I don't actually agree with your assessment. point by point, in order:

• [10] is factual. if you want to nitpick, I could have phrased the first paragraph better, but someone would have to be stretching to make that personal. I'm sorry if it offends you, but most people on wikipedia have practically no clue about the analytical use of the word consensus (nor should they - that's my field, not theirs), and it is a fact that several of the people who are participating (Will in particular) have reason to be annoyed at me from other venues.
• [11] is only uncivil if Will was not editing tendentiously, but I think it's clear from the preceding discussion that he was. Are you saying that I don't have a right to push back against a tendentious editor?
• [12] could have done without the word 'pissy', granted, but it is basically pointing out to PM that he is misrepresenting the concept and arguing from a conservative skeptical position. That's not a bad thing - I accept that a lot of people are going to be skeptical about this, and that there's a a higher standard of proof that such people will need to be convinced. However, the talk page of the idea under development is not the correct place to deal with strongly-skeptical people, since there is nothing that can be said which will convince them. They have to see it.

Now let me take a stab at the your real objection here, which is my tone. I am being frank, authoritative, and uncompromising; I am explaining things in clear detail, and I am calling people in unfailing detail on their errors in logic and understanding; I am cornering them into being active, reasoned participants in the discussion through brute force. In short, I'm browbeating people, a thing I am very well equipped to do. It is not something I enjoy doing, mind you - it makes me nauseous to have to do it for any prolonged period of time - but it is something that I have to do on project, because if I didn't do it (and if I weren't good at it) I would have been indef-banned through some skanky political maneuver a long time ago. sometimes I overdo it, yes, but never by much, and never in a way that is unjustified or would be damaging to any serious conversation. It's just an effective tool that keeps the wolves at bay, when wolves come sniffing around.

If there were sheriffs around, I wouldn't have to do it, and would never do it by choice. Since there aren't, I work within the system as it is in the best way I know how. I'm not suggesting you should like it, or even respect it; I just want you to understand the necessity of it. --Ludwigs2 21:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No reason you should have to refactor. You are uncivil sometimes but not badly. A Sheriff might have to refactor some of the stuff you say, but that's just the Sheriff's job. You seem to have trouble because you're smarter than nearly all the people here, and furthermore you don't suffer in silence and pretend that the crap that goes on, partly due to the fact that there are no civil rights on WP, doesn't actually go on. (You also don't have opinion hidden behind a facade.) WP is mob rule, tempered only by the fact that most of it is out in the open (though not enough of it). Can you give me a heads-up when the Sheriff proposal is ready to be presented to the community? I'm busy in RL and haven't been following the general arguments. Thx (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It'll be a couple of days. I'm taking a short semiwikibreak until I stop being annoyed. not too long though. --Ludwigs2 05:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)