User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom

Just came across this. If you haven't, there's a lot of interesting ideas about the way WP works (or doesn't). Peter jackson (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Bullet points vs. not

Please stop reverting my use of bullet points. As I've explained elsewhere, to many other editors, it isn't inappropriate and a broad range of administrators use this form of talk page posting. For example, a casual perusal of WP:AN/I rapidly comes up with five different administrators using bullet style for identation 1 2 3 4 5. Two of these are checkusers and oversighters, and one of those is a bureaucrat. Using bullet points for indentation is well accepted. If you want to edit your own posts, fine. But please stop editing mine. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And if I were having a discussion with them I would edit their posts as well. Throwing in needless bullet points makes it difficult to follow the thread of conversation, and confuses people where actual bullets are needed to structure things. This isn't about you and what you want; this is about reasonable discussion practices. --Ludwigs2 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• If you remove my bullet points, I'll reinstate them, pure and simple. There's no policy against them, and best practices from multiple administrators and bureaucrats allows them. You might not like them, but that's not a reason to remove them. I could just as well force your indentations to include bullet points. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I will also note that you have not done as you said at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Weston_Price.2C_NPOV.2C_and_MEDRS, where you responded to four different editors that used bullet points right before you, including two administrators. You also did not avail yourself of the opportunity to remove the bullet points from this diff by User:Pmanderson. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

ugh, you're both being dorks, and I'm not going to argue with you about this absolutely trivial issue anymore. You do what you want, I'll do what I want, and if bullet points continually appear and disappear from the discussion no one will really care (no one except for you and me, that is, and frankly I don't really care, either - I'm just f%ckin' around). God save me from people who take this kind of crap seriously. --Ludwigs2 21:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-26/Ambarish Srivastava

As a mediator, do you know why the bot removed Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-26/Ambarish Srivastava from Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases? Cunard (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

at a guess because you added a link for the article name rather than just plain text. I've corrected that, and we'll see if it solves the problem. if so, that's a fairly major bug that I'll need to do something about. --Ludwigs2 23:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the formatting fix. A minor correction: I didn't create the mediation and am not involved in the dispute. Cunard (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

ok, that was the problem. I need to figure out what the poster did so that I can figure out how to keep people from doing that anymore. --Ludwigs2 23:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Weston Price

Didn't know if you've been keeping tabs, but BruceGrubb has been making a number of the same edits that I has been reverted in the past, as well as started up (or restarted) noticeboard discussions here and here. I was hoping for some outside opinion as I am just repeating myself over and over and you have provided valuable input on the talk page in the past. Thanks for the consideration. Yobol (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Weston_Price.2C_NPOV.2C_and_MEDRS regarding an issue with which you are involved. Thank you.

Heh, I see you're all back at it with Ronz and Yobol. Well I predicted that the "retirement" was just to placate the Admin who was almost ready to impose a ban. I think I was marginalized because I made the case at the time, in terms maybe some thought too strong. Anyway, you and Bruce have fun. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 20:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Simply, some editors have extreme difficulty following WP:BATTLE and WP:AGF. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

@TFI: I'm just trying to improve the signal to noise ratio on that page. probably won't work.

@Ronz: I'd like to think your comment was a moment of honest self-reflection. was it? Eh, never mind, I don't really want to know. --Ludwigs2 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want me to mind, remove it. --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw on the talk page and on AN/I the possibility of a RFC/U. Did you still have intentions on that, and if so, is there anything I can do to help? Bruce is moving full speed ahead with his behavior on the talk page. Yobol (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Haymaker

What's the purppose of throwing a haymaker if you are not going to counterpunch? "These punches pack power, but leave the person vulnerable to a counter punch during the wind up or if the haymaker misses". PPdd (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

exactly! but be careful: while I assume you are joking around, that's very close to sounding like a confession to BAITing, which is a nononono on project. --Ludwigs2 02:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I pointed this out already in edit summaries and on the talk page, but it's appropriate to also make note of it here. I won't template you, since I know you so object to it, but consider this a pointer to WP:EW (the warning for which is {{uw-3rr}}). You are currently engaged in an edit war on Pseudoscience, irrespective of how many reverts you've made in a given period of time. It would be good to refamiliarize yourself with the distinction between edit warring and the 3 revert rule. I say this because if the warring continues, I'll have to post an RfPP, which at the present pace may result in you receiving attention for taking part, including being temporarily blocked. This would mar your block log, so I'd not suggest continuing to war. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, why don't you just reword per the source and put it in another section you start on psudoscience in medicine. That is how things will likely turn out, and this way you get to use your pwn wording. I have seen you WP:write for the enemy, and you do a very good NPOV job at it. :) PPdd (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Jess: I'm using the talk page, the people who keep reverting me are not. that makes them guilty of edit-warring. beyond that, you go do what you feel a need to do (I'll adapt); I am perfectly cognizant of wikipedia rules, and I have no intention of giving up on this issue until it is resolved appropriately (which is not going to happen by reams of skeptics showing up to make reverts against sourcing policy). If you want to use reason, I'd prefer that, and that would be nice; otherwise, I have no problem lower myself to your level to play this out.

@ PPdd: because I'm pissed off at a bunch of <plural expletive deleted> at the moment, and I just don't want to. It's Jess' f%cking idea, so Jess can f%cking implement it.

when I calm down a bit I might be more amenable, but at the moment the RfC is leaning heavily towards delete and I'd prefer that to a new section just out of pure spite. --Ludwigs2 01:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to press this much, since I know you're taking some time to calm down before tackling the issue again, and I think that's probably a good idea since we need time to hear other input on the talk page anyway. However, I will note two things. For one, the discuss step of WP:BRD has nothing to do with WP:EW; One can edit war while posting to the talk page, which is what's occurring now. Secondly, and very generously sidestepping your unnecessary expletives, moving the content to a new section was not my idea. You posted about it first, and I suggested that it would be a good alternative to edit warring. I explained this on the talk page already (in my comment that spurred your ANI threat on my talk, in fact). Since, obviously, being pointy is not a good way to edit, I still think it's a viable option to try. I'll leave it at that until you come back at this tomorrow. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors were in the process of discussing the matter on the talk page. If you try to improve the text rather than continuing to wholesale delete all the text it may work better. QuackGuru (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent AN thread

Hello, this is to make you aware that in your recently started WP:AN thread, I have invited you to show cause why you should not be sanctioned for making threats against others. I will assume that you decline to respond to this concern if you do not do so within two hours of your next edit.  Sandstein  21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting - what exactly are you referring to? And you should know me better than that - I never decline a conversation of this sort, and always welcome any critiques of my actions. --Ludwigs2 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What's everyone so worked up for? Its just a sentence in an article, and in Wikipedia, no less. :) PPdd (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been temporarily blocked from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

You are blocked for 72 hours for threats of disruption. It is not acceptable to attempt to coerce administrators into taking action against an opponent in a dispute by threatening that otherwise "things will get ugly" and that you will "shout down and shut up" the other editor. This block is in application and enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  23:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made an appeal to arbcom, and am considering whether to start a desysop procedure against you for gross misuse of your powers. we'll see. --Ludwigs2 00:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a good candidate for the most absurd and abusive block that I have ever observed. Hans Adler 00:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be more constructive to reconsider the remarks you made. I do not think that they should have led to a block - I have seen far worse comments that administrators have chosen to ignore. However, it is better to phrase your comments in a more polite fashion. And complaining about the administrator is unlikely to be a successful strategy. TFD (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

After weeks of QuackGuru refusing to communicate in a meaningful way (as is his usual MO), and after weeks of QuackGuru and some others pushing semi-blatant nonsense into the pseudoscience article as if they were intentionally trying to discredit it, it is completely inappropriate to shoot the messenger for expressing his frustration. Hans Adler 00:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem considering the remarks I made, or even redacting if necessary. I just wasn't given the opportunity - sandstein warned me, and then when I asked for clarification he blocked me. what am I supposed to have done?

WIth respect to complaints about administrators - this is (IMO) a clear abuse of authority, and a misuse of the arbitration ruling. Sandstein was obviously riled up and obviously in a hurry to block me, for whatever reason. While it may come to nothing, I think I should at least put it on record that that he made this bad of an error in judgement, otherwise what's to stop him from blocking me again the next time he feels like it? I don't really like the idea of having the sword of sandstein hanging over my head, waiting for me to twitch some way he doesn't like. --Ludwigs2 00:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I am confused. Above you say you have appealed to Arbcom, but below you have added a normal unblock template. Are you sure that's wise? Hans Adler 01:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I am also confused, and have no idea what's wise in this situation. I thought it best to cover all bases and be accused of forum shopping rather than leave something undone and be told I didn't follow procedure. As I understand these things, Sandstein has absolute power here (barring arbcom intervention), but I don't really know if I understand things correctly.

It's a really stupid system. I'll have to pt this on my list of things to fix on wikipedia. --Ludwigs2 01:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have set up a request for unblock at ANI.[1] I do not think that an administrator is allowed unblock except through ANI or ArbCom. TFD (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The block is wholly unwarranted. In an ideal world Sandstein would be censured for such a disproportionate action, but we've reached a state where AE blocks carry the force of Holy Writ regardless of their intrinsic merits or lack thereof. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this was the MOST unwarranted block ever. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ludwigs2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I acknowledge that the comment I made was a bit heated, and I will certainly do my best to make calmer statements in the future. however, I do not believe this statement can actually be construed as a 'threat' or a 'coercion' - it was more like a plea to administrators to help me cope with an intransigent editor. Nor was I actually given a chance to explain before I was blocked - I was blocked immediately after I asked sandstein for clarification on what he was talking about (it wasn't at all clear to me what he was referring to at first). I do not believe that this block is justified or necessary, and I would like to have it lifted.

Accept reason:

Considering the user's statement that he will redact the comments that the blocking admin found to be a threat, adding that he didn't mean the comments to be a threat of disruption, the comments here by editors who support unblocking, and the fact that this block is a long stretch of the ArbCom pseduoscience restrictions, I'm going to unblock Ludwigs2. At this point, the block is punative, not preventive Dreadstar ☥ 02:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, please strike through these comments: "if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up." and " if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly" as these comments can be construed as threats to cause disruption and attack another editor. Use the Dispute resolution process instead. Dreadstar ☥ 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Redacted, as requested. let me know if there's anything else problematic that I should remove. and thanks. --Ludwigs2 04:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Dreadstar 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,  Sandstein  06:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

XXX Unblock Notice XXX

Hey, you're unblocked. In case they didn't feed you properly in jail, here's a cookie.

PPdd has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

PPdd (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ludwig, how are things going? I've been reading all the political/administrative goings-on with you and then Dreadstar. I'll tell you, legalism and burocracy in this place reminds me of the federal govt. It's enough to make you want to walk away sometimes. I know you've got to be frustrated. I was, after the Weston Price fiasco. The complexity of policy alone plus all the wikilawyering is mind boggling. What happened to the priority of just writing good articles? You hang in there man, there are still plenty of us normal people out here. Enjoy your cookie. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If you ever find yourself locked up again, and locked out of this public virtual world, note that there is a FILE baked in the cookie I gave you, "File:Choco chip cookie.png", to help you in a jail-break. Also, if you ever need a Wikilawyer, although Wikilayers usually require a retainer, like promising your first-born WP:SP, I understand that some editors are paid less than others for editing at WP, so I might reduce my rate to just be for all of your assets, and not include a demand on all of your future earnings. :) PPdd (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

@PPdd: the one problem with your FILE is that there are nuts in it, and trust me: I do NOT need any more nuts in my wikipedia life.

@TFI: lol - I wish it were like the federal government; at least that way I'd have some guaranteed rights. As it is, this has that 'banana republic' feel (no, not the clothing retailer - only in the USA could they turn oppressive political dictatorship into a brand name).--Ludwigs2 17:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Talking about you

I added some thoughts to a page you are probably watching. I genuinely think that you are not in the wrong here, and would feel bad were my addition to backfire. Simple three-click undo link, should you think my comments inaccurate or unproductive. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 17:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just reading that. It's probably not exactly the way I would describe it myself, but it's a fair assessment and I don't see any real issues with it. it's all good. --Ludwigs2 17:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Quote

Ludwigs, would you please use the contact tool here so that I can ask a question ... offline. Thanks! Tom Butler (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll drop you a line, but just as a rule if it's project related I prefer to discuss it here. --Ludwigs2 18:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Weird times

Since WP:WIP, right now seems like a "weird time" to come in and do massive changes, especially as there is a massive DE/SPE/multi3RR/multiSP/MP investigation under way (which I asked to be closed AGF, but the multiple admins involved refused to do so, even though I was the one who brought them all up.) One DE/SPE/multi3RR/multiSP/MP is topic banned and is still disrupting the talk page, and another deleted the 3RR and DE notices on his talk page and then edit warred and outright lied several times in order to disrupt talk. As you should have noticed by now, I almost always find your perspective, (which is unusual for such a POV since it is (almost) alway combined with good reasoning), to help improve WP and help me notice my own narrow-mindedness. :) PPdd (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

there's never a bad time to improve an article, and I think even you have to admit that the article is currently very heavy on low-significance/high-salience trivia. I mean, it reads more like a scandal rag than an encyclopedia entry, if you follow me. I'm not intending on removing your stuff (except for some of the more pointy material, but I'm probably going to compress that loooong section on bizarre medicinals into a smaller section, qualify it as fringe medicinals even for TCM, and flesh out other parts with more detailed information about mainstream TCM practice.

I don't know anything about your alphabet soup complaint, I don't really care about such things (I'm more of a minestrone guy), and I have no interest in getting involved in it if I can avoid it. I've got enough drama at the moment, thankyouverymuch. I think I can work parallel to whatever is going on there; at least, I plan to try. If I start to cross wires with it, let me know, and I'll try to back off that whatever it is I'm doing there and do something else. --Ludwigs2 21:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• (1) All TCM medicinals are "bizzarre" because the stated dictim is "all medicinals are toxic" and the more toxic, the greater their effect and prevalence. By your stated goal, only highly toxic meds would be in the article. Is that what you plan?
• (2) You should read about mixtures before deciding on your own what is fringe. For example, mercury and lead were called "fringe" because they are used in minute amounts, but are essential ingredients in the pao processing method.
• (3) How do you work "parallel" to an existing multi-SP edit war by what you just stated which is doing exactly what the multi-SP's warriors want? One of the alphabet soup editors (there were 5 recent blocks for edit warring SP) just suggested that you delete longstanding content by declaaring it "fringe", shorten sections with content that they do not like, reorgainze in violation of MOS as to original style, and all in the middle of a multi-SP multi-edit war, and without discussing at talk first... in the middle of an edit war that got a semi-protect from an admin to stop such things!
• (4) The new warriors have admitted they came to WP to "create a new consensus", and for no other reason, and one of them appears to be the "professor" of the others (who still remain after 5 were blockied so far).
• (5) The new warriors have stated they do not care about MOS per the structure style of the first significant editor on the medicines section. PPdd (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• (6) As the edits history shows, I have done an extensive amount of research and am adding the content from it hourly (except when shut down by the constant disruptions and deletions), and each section has significant additions about to be made, and independent articles for each section where expanded content will go.
• (7) I am also curious how you pre-know about being "fringe" or not. You already argued against listing medicines at all is fringy, when they account for 75% of TCM practice, and a much higher percentage of usage as they are self-prescribed by the tradition of internal family practice, indicating a lack of understanding of TCM and its history and practice. Do you have good RS basing your assertions of "fringe" in stating what you plan to do? It sounds like what you will do in actuality is join an edit war to delete and OR Synth an image others want and you have without RS basis. PPdd (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I have no interest in getting involved in this dispute that you're having. I'm just going to do what I think is right, and you can judge the results after they are done. If you don't see the current bias in the article now, maybe you'll understand it after revisions are made. or maybe not, but at least at that point we'll have something concrete to discuss.

To be frank, you have been setting yourself up for problems since the first moment you started editing this way, because you're clearly not even trying to give a balanced overview of the material, and you've been editing at an almost manic rate. I'm surprised it took this long for a backlash to form against you; I'm actually stepping in now to minimize the fallout that you've brought on yourself. I'll suggest (gently) that this might be a really good opportunity for you to stop and think about proper encyclopedic style and collaborative editing, because you really have not gotten those concepts yet. enough said. --Ludwigs2 23:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to give a balanced overview; I am reading RS TCM history and RS TCM info websites and writing what they say, then looking it up on google scholar to see what other RSs say. That's it. If you had an objection to an approach and were planning to delete on some grounds, then why did you not state it at talk before I spent months doing research and doing about 600 edits, so that I could have modified the approach? I am not editing at a "manic rate". Different editors have different rates, skills, and knowledge. And the entire article can be read in a matter of minutes, so that is not all that much editing in total. I have had no problems at all with other editors, as can be seen where the pro-alt med editors and anti both removed the POV tags after I finished, tags that were on the articles when I got to the article and taken off when I left. E.g., here and here, and the article has not changed at all in the month since I edited it, a highly edit war prone homeopathy-related article. And just yesterday here, the neutrality tag was removed after my edits (which are not finished on that one). PPdd (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As I have told you once or twice already, the point of an encyclopedia entry is to give a balanced overview of the topic. Misused sources are as much a form of editorial synthesis as original research. Please note that I did try to get you to take a different tack early on, but you were intent on ploughing ahead, so I decided it would be better to let you do what you were doing for a while and try again later. later is now. --Ludwigs2 02:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but balance comes after most of the content is put in, not before. Just like writing any paper, put everything in and then trim it into shape. An article goes back and forth between POVs as it develops, with material coming in from one source area, causing imbalance, then from another, reversing the balance. When little more content is being added, that's when to look at the article as a whole. I wrote an essay on this, article creep. PPdd (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

that's needlessly formulaic. Articles do not need to be built by assigning sequential short-term ownership. --Ludwigs2 04:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Then help out in a meaningful way. There are five spirits Shen (Emporor, Will, Intellect, Etherial Soul, Corporal Soul), Five associated yin organ systems (Heart, Kidney, Spleen, Liver, Lungs). Five Phases and Five associated elements (Earth Fire Water Metal Wood), Five associated planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn), Five associated directions (North, East, South, West, Center), Five Tastes (Bitter, Salty, Sweet, Sour, Pungent), 4 natures – (Cold, Hot, Warm, Cool), 12+20 meridians, etc. There is also Blood, Qi, Yin, Yang, Pathogens, Toxicity, etc. There is much more ontology. Then there are relationships between all of these things. It gets complex fast. What does it all mean? - The article must answer this. How does it all tie to the medicines? to the other practices? I have been waiting for another editor who has been editing about theory to finish this, out of courtesy, since he has been working hard and I don’t want to step on his toes in the middle, since I do not know his strategy or the MOS style he has set as the first principal contributor on this. Then I will tie it all together. But instead of taking a couple of weeks, he is taking MONTHS. How is it possible for TCM NOT to look weird if there is no explanation at all? It would be like a stone age person going to a computer lab, or physics lab, or watching surgery on the spine for pain in the leg (sciatica – ridiculous?), or watching sausage being made. It looks weird because they do not understand it. TCM article will always look weird until it is explained “why”, instead of what appears to be a random list, which it is not. How can the article be "balanced" in its infancy? There are currently POV editors who think the article is some kind of "presentation to the public" of TCM. It is not. It is a presentation of knowledge about TCM", not a public relations stunt. If you really want to help, work on this paragraph and gradually work toward what is already in the article having meaning. PPdd (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, the best advice I can give you is to draft. Draft in talkspace, or in userspace... But your tornado-blitz, always-in-progress style might be less problematic if you just compiled it on your userspace first and then brought individual paragraphs to the talk page for comments before adding. Even just drafting complete paragraphs first and then boldly adding them to the article would be better than serial changes to multiple sections. Ocaasi (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I just don't always know when I will be editing. I usually do it as a break from work, so that's why I come up with littel bits at a time. I did not consider anything controversial untile an off Wiki group dedicided what "the image of TCM" should be, in apparent utter ignorance of the subject. The only other editor who objected to anything was when Ludwigs2 objected that TCM medicines only played a minor role and should not be in the article at all. I don't really know how to argue with an editor who makes such "expert" claims. I had to find a source for the obvious, that the meds were the main show. Note that there were POV objetions to human parts being in the article, but when human feces turns out to be almost the only experimentally justifiable "medicine" that is not just pure poison, all of a sudden they are not calling for removal. These considerations about "how TCM looks" should never be made, and the article should grow in information independent of stepping back and saying, "I don't know if the info should go in. How does it make TCM look? We'll use that as the criteria of censorship". PPdd (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, consider copying literally the entire article into your userspace, then update it as you please, and once a section has received a critical mass of changes, move it in a block. That way you can have the spontaneity of working piecemeal without the confusion for other editors. I'm not the only one to mention your somewhat erratic editing style (high energy, somewhat discontinuous); so this comment is not about TCM in particular. However, any time you're working in Pseudoscience-space, you should more or less assume changes will be controversial and possibly propose them first. I agree that 'how something looks' should be secondary, if considered at all... just make sure you're not trying to gather only the negative-looking pieces, as that kind of editing--though it may slip through policy-wise as long as the pieces are individually verifiable--creates a lot of friction. How can I say this clearly... don't be the QuackGuru of Chinese Medicine--in other words, an editor who abides by policy but in such a way that few trust the neutrality of the edits and it creates a lot of back and forth to get anything done (Ludwigs would argue most times QG quotes policy it's incorrect, but that's besides the point in this example). Don't be an enemy of Alternative Medicine, would be my advice, just be a proponent of thorough encyclopedic writing about it.

Also remember that when people are coming to learn about Chinese Medicine, or any topic, they don't just want to know what mainstream doctors and scientists think about it; they want to understands its history, it's rich cultural meaning, it's evolution, it's role in society, it's curiosities... as well as where it fits in current medical/scientific understanding and the various criticisms and controversies that entails.

Also, don't forget that although you are an academic, in academia, the editors you're battling with are likely TCM practioners. They care about the respectability of their field and very likely themselves practice the more respectable aspects of it (not every TCM practitioner, at least in the US and Europe is going to be offering bizarre remedies like rat feces). So try to put even the negative pieces in context. If rat feces is part of a remedy, but more traditionally than at present, make sure that is mentioned, and don't put a big picture of rat shit in the remedies section, since that comes off as Pointy. In general, while you are doing a great job by removing uncited controversial information, your editing would be much more smooth if you added the negative pieces after you added the generally informative pieces. So those various aspects you mentioned to Ludwigs above (5 of this and 5 of that and 4 of these)... start with those next time and at the end put in the rat feces. Then it wouldn't look like you have a particular agenda. Ocaasi (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ok. I will try it. I'm not sure I know what "critical mass" means, though. For example, I have been adding single sentences after reading a journal article, such as to a small subsection. It seems better if the edits can be checked by others line by line, and not for them to see a sudden giant change. But since you suggest it, I will try it.
• I am also not sure about the "balance the article" idea. If a real estate developer bombed a series of buildings, and there was an aricle about him, the list of bombed buildings need not be "balanced" with a list of buildings he built. With rare exception, I have not even considered "balance". I have only considered what the TCM advocate sites advertise and RS for it. My method has been to read a TCM advert site. Find RS for its claims and put it in the article. Then google scholar to check what science says. Also if an editor brings something up at talk, like "this and that study shows this benifit", or "sounds like cannibalism", or "licorice makes human feces work as a medicine as compared to ingesting it without the licorice" (that's true), or "boiling aconite for an hour makes it safe to eat" (yes, someone actually proposed that), I google scholar that and find RS, and insert. I think the article will gradually balance itself, and should not have POV deliberately introduced by trying to artificially create a new organizational structure or censor content by deletion, espeicially by editors who have no idea what they are doing and should therefore not self-appoint themselves as deletinoist censors. have no PPdd (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ignorance, headaches, judgment, medicinals, Chinese alchemy, and apologies

Heavens to Betsy! Did you really just say that you don't know anything about TCM except what's on 'TCM advert sites', and you still feel entitled to forge ahead and do major revisions to the article? You do realize that if we took that approach with western medicine our medical articles would be filled with information about the LapBand, viagra, boob jobs, collagen injections, and third-rate untested pharmaceuticals from Mexico and the Balkan states? Argh!

This is NOT a proper or respectable way to add information to the encyclopedia. Granting that I expect this from kids who edit - kids don't have the mental focus or knowledge-base to consider the topic as a whole - I do not expect it from people who aim to be dedicated editors. If you don't have the perspective you need to make a reasonable, well-considered article, then you are just doing harm to the encyclopedia. Editing from a bias is one thing (that can be balanced by other editors), but editing in a state of sheer ignorance is ridiculous!

Ugh. You make my head hurt. --Ludwigs2 18:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a xerophytic field botanist, and I have been the chief american scientist for the largest agricultural congolmerate in western china since 2009, based in gansu at the eastern edge of the gobi. We make cancer drugs from traditional herbal medicines (and chinese whisky, and etc.). I also own a company in Shanghai. When at WP, I only know what is in RS. My best friend and principal info source to look up RS from, is a world famous celebrity MD, and is a major advocate of alternative medicine (I got to know him by debating him in Hollywood a few years back, although I had met him years before that). He says something like, "the theory is hocu pocus, but the medicines were derived by a very long period of trial and error and meticulous record keeping for thousands of years, so some of it works." Because I was accused of POV (without anyone knowing my real background), I decided to WP:ENEMY, and went to major mainstream TCM sites to see what they said, such as NCCAM, Journal of Chinese Medicine, and even Acupuncture Today. I then tried to work their content into the article with RS. Everything I originally deleted from the article as NRS, I reworded per RS or MEDRS and put back in the article. When the new POV SPA army arrived, they contested the article saying "human parts", so I looked up RS for the sentence, just as I did for any contested sentence. I found a wealeth of literature, and have recently been writing from it, which they interpret as POV. But they had no problems with me when I was writing the history section. They don't understand WP:WNF, and AGF. You, too - AGF. :) PPdd (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't judge people according to who they are in real life. I've met some people on wikipedia who have PhDs but are torrential idiots, and others who are high school kids but are darned good editors. I judge people (to the extent I bother to judge people) by how they behave on articles. If you don't understand how RS can be used to give a very skewed presentation of a topic, then you don't understand how to edit an encyclopedia, and no matter how smart you are otherwise you're going to make a mess of things. --Ludwigs2 21:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• You just did "judge", uncivilly asscuing me of "not having mental focus or knowledge", "editing in a state of sheer ignorance", being "ridiculous". and "editing like a kid". This forced me to semi-out my own self in order to reasonably reply. The fact is that I know a bit about TCM, and it was you who was so lacking in knowledge that you argued that the medicinals not be in the article at all.
• Re "your headache" - I recommend you take an alchemically derived combination of "blood stagnation" reducers, plus "blood tonics", from the medicinals I put in the article, which are justified under the theory section I wrote, since your headache appears to be from our own ignorance, both of TCM and its medicinals and the theory under which they are believed to work, and ignorance of my own background, so a medicinal preparation for assisting blood flow to the brain is indicated.
• Even if what you said was true, which it is not, your language violates ettiquete and civility, and I ask that you please apologize for it. You are creating a hostile editing environment with such name calling and false accusations, unbecoming of the reputation you have built with me, and likely others. PPdd (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did judge you, based on your statement and your behavior on articles. if you don't like it - become a better editor. Now, I'm not interested in going around in circles with you on this. either you see the problem I'm talking about or you don't, and if you don't we're not going to fix the problem here. conversation closed. --Ludwigs2 17:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Request at AN/I

Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Problems at Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).The discussion is about the topic Traditional Chinese medicine. Regards, —Six words (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Monkey and the Inkpot

Other editors had been letting me edit witohut interruption until I had finished adding content, tied the content together with 5 Phase C. alchemy and astrology, organized it, then examined its content and pared it down, then reworded it all for NPOV. My construction tag must have been accidentally removed while I was working. So there is no reason I should do the same to you as might have been done to me in error, not anticipating how the content might ultimately be used, what would be kept in a semi-finished context, or how it would all be tied together and presented, once all of the easily available cotent was in with RS. I was in the middle of reading The Moneky and the Inkpot when you started in at TCM. I had read parts of it before, not as a TCM book, but as a taxonomy, metaphysics, and history of Natural history science book, such as regarding "energy" and the soul. I might not be the version of "radical skeptic" you know. I am an ardent Singularitarian, coming from the Schroedinger What is Life school of thought, said to be very "oriental" in style, although I think that is wishful thinking by some. In particular, I was interested in the metaphysics of alternative views of transformation, and in the "soul of the hanged criminal", and "life force". Most skeptics dismiss the "soul" and "life force"... until they are about to die, whence they all instantly convert into agnosticism. "Commonly found or used" differs greatly from being "easy to get", such as human placents, or "rare but highly valued", such as gold and jewlry regarding wealth, or in TCM, deer and tiger penis and ox bezoar. And unfortunately "ex" does not mean "friend" as you just called her- :( PPdd (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Errrr... I happen to like Wittgenstein and Beethoven (Ludwigs-2). One of my favorite quotes from Wittgenstein is "Do not be afraid of speaking nonsense, just pay attention to the nonsense you speak." With that sentiment in mind... hunh? --Ludwigs2 21:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you didn't say what the "2" in your name is, so with my nonAGF, I assume you are holding back something terrible... lying by ommission, of the "2", perhaps?

Not having really read Wittgenstein (I can fake it, a little), and being no expert on German music before Schoenberg's Transfigured Night (I can play all of it on a wood saw with a cello bow... really. But I never could get a straight answer to "What does 'Verklärte' mean?", or "transfigured", for that matter, but maybe you can answer that. Actually, I can kind of play pre-Schoen Brahms' Violin Concero on the saw... barely.), I went ahead and put Wittgenstein in an article I wrote, but barely understand, absurdity. In it, I cite Wittgenstein drawing a distinction betwen "absurdity" and "nonsense", so he perhaps may not have "meant" to say, "Do not be afraid of speaking absurdities, just pay attention to the absurdities you speak." Maybe you can help that article section out a little bit. I certainly would not object to a rewrite there! And maybe you can help fill out the subsections of that "there". I put a call out for help at WikiProject Philosophy and got no bites (no one is that much of a masochist there). :) PPdd (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig Wittgenstein; Ludwig Beethoven; Ludwigs2. So deep you almost hit bottom before you hit the top.

All LW means by the distinction between absurdity and nonsense is that nonsense is not intelligibly parsable - e.g. "I quaff my cadaver extemporaneously" - where as the absurd is parsable but not meaningful - e.g. "I think what I might not think if I thought at all" (or in more Wittgensteinian terms, nonsense is an obviously unusable utterance, whereas absurdity has the appearance of a useful utterance, but fails to actually be useful). It's not really a major theme in Wittgenstein so far as I know; his main interest in that kind of thing would have been as a special form of language failure. --Ludwigs2 04:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I agree (and not sure I disagree, hedging my bets). Here's how I drew the distinction between nonsense (an article that pre-existed me), absurdity, and ridiculousness. Nonsense lacks sense (Frege - "sinn" - meaning, related to "concept". Note, despite its condemning itself to meaninglessness, as do any philosophical systems, I most closely identify with logical positivists - from BJAODN - "Logical positivism vanished in a puff of logic".) Ansurdity has to do with errors in reasoning. Ridiculousness has to do with feelings of superiority (ridicule), incongruity, laughter, and deformity. I wrote the last two articles, and would not object to any suggestions, alterations, or other improvements (I find that change, itself, for better or worse, is a kind of improvement.) Wittgensein's citation I put in that article fit with the articles as they were, so I interpreted it in that light, not in Wittgensteinian terms.

• Here]'s what I think of all the bickering at WP. So do you think you could ignore all the fighting all over WP and read the Nappi that I suggested re TCM. Here's a "teaser" to get your interest, from Carla Nappi's 2006 doctoral thesis at Princeton (she also worked with Stanford folks) about TCM -

“What kind of violence might be done to a system of knowledge when met and deconstructed by another? Is it possible to understand an epistemological world vastly removed from one’s own either in time or space? This question, which lies at the heart of any attempt to understand local epistemologies… (footnote: By “local epistemology” I mean a way of understanding the study of knowledge-making that acknowledges that there are different forms of epistemology, i.e., equally justifiable systems of knowledge that operate on different principles or in different contexts… See Ian Hacking “Historical Epistemology”… and in “styles of reasoning” – “Historical Ontology”… These and related approaches acknowledge a phenomenon that I also explore here: there are a plurality of justifiable systems of gathering knowledge about the world. /footnote)"

(Note - I was Hacking's student, but in phil of prob/stats stuff, not this intersting stuff she just mentioned. I cited his book organization style to II regarding TCM, at II's talk page.)

• I'll bet you didn't expect writing a TCM article would get deeply into all that kind of fun stuff, did you? That's the mindset I had in making my edits, quite different than "radical skepticism". I was just dumping in RS content left and right to have stuff to work with when I really wrote the article later on, after there was enough paint supply to make the painting. So its possible to turn the TCM article into something really interesting, yet still be true to what TCM is, and look like a standard, conventional, good encyclopia article... and have fun, all at the same time! PPdd (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, yeah, I almost forgot to notice. (1) You didn't tell me what "2" means, nor, more imprtant, (2) define "Verklärte" as used by Schoenberg in his 1899 Romantic masterpiece. How about "Verklärte" as might apply to 5 Phase TCM alchemy? PPdd (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude. Ludwig Wittgenstein. Ludwig von Beethoven. How many Ludwigs is that? And I don't know anything about Schoenberg, never heard the term 'Verklärte' before, and frankly think it sounds like the noise one makes when being given the Heimlich maneuver. Perhaps Schoenberg choked on a pea while composing?

as far as the rest goes - too late this evening for philosophy. perhaps tomorrow. --Ludwigs2 06:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

P.s. I just listened to the sound-bite of Schoenberg's music on his article page, and I have to say that if that is typical of his work... It sounds like that entire string quartet needs the Heimlich. I have no doubts that it is intellectually brilliant, but I'm too much of a traditionalist. Give me Barber or Mahler or heck, Etta James: something that moves one spiritually rather than <cough>intestinally</cough>. Call me irredeemable philistine and presumptuous, peasant-footed cad, fine, but God have Mercy that stuff was awful. --Ludwigs2 07:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comments about Mathsci

 Clerk note: Your comments here were both unnecessary and unhelpful. Mathsci had not even been mentioned on the talk page prior to your bringing him up. When you brought him up, you did so only to make a snide remark about him ("I don't think Mathsci made a single post in that entire mess that didn't involve accusing someone of being a fringe advocate") that did not contribute meaningfully to any discussion. Your other comments in that thread were reasonable, but that reference to Mathsci could have been avoided easily without detracting from your points. NW (Talk) 03:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If was an offhand comment that wasn't meant to be inflaming, but is just a reflection of the way I see that old dispute historically. I mean you're right, but it didn't occur to me that it would cause a problem when I wrote it. bad juju. Anything you need me to do aside from just drop it? --Ludwigs2 03:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That's really about it. Thanks for being so understanding :) NW (Talk) 04:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page and joking/chidingly added the edit comment okie dokie, as I've seen you do at times. Was not meant to deride, just in case it comes across that way. Though I happen to disagree with your approach in this particular case. Ocaasi (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

lol - that's the first time I've been okie-dokied by someone else. I'm horribly offended you would say such a thing! .

Just so you know, I really do understand what you're saying, and in an ideal sense I'd be inclined to agree with you - focusing on specific issues independently is the preferred approach so long as the big picture is kept in context. Unfortunately, the other people in the discussion who are advocating for a split are doing it to obscure the big picture - a split would mean that (a) the dreadstar/sandstein issue reduces to a pure pro-forma exercise in arbcom legalism, and (b) all issues involving me and QG disappears as 'unripe'. That may happen anyway, mind you, but I'm not inclined to let it slide away that easily. --Ludwigs2 15:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Muhammed stuff

That rule doesn't apply to moving comments that are put in the wrong place. Go ahead and report me if it makes you feel better.—Chowbok ☠ 23:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if you insist. I'll probably hit you for edit-warring, first, though.

unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide what the right and wrong place to post something is. see you an ANI. --Ludwigs2 23:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

policy question

Hi, Ludwigs. I see that wiki life is as lively as ever for you. I was wondering if you know if there is a policy about users contacting other users with offers (thinly disguised spam). Just wondering if you've come across any discussions on this? thanks. --stmrlbs|talk 07:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

yeah, well, I commit the cardinal sin of being both rational and stubborn. That violates cognitive schemas and sends the less adaptable element into vitriolic tizzies. whatayagonnado...

I've never heard of anything like your problem, but it seems like fairly straight-forward admin business. If someone's using a wikipedia account to send spam emails, either contact an admin personally or open a thread about it over at wp:AN or wp:ANI. Just include as much of the body of the email as you can without revealing your or the other person's personal information, and it'll get dealt with appropriately. --Ludwigs2 16:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL.. but I don't think that you are totally to blame. It might have something to do with the environment. Once you are "noticed" by a certain group of resident editors, it doesn't take much to end up in what seems at times like a bar room brawl.  :)

I went over to the administration boards.. saw a lot about spamming, but more in relation to articles. Well, it is only one email, so I'm not going to worry about it. Just wondered if maybe this was something that was common or not. It was a headhunter kind of thing - which when I think about it, a lot of people put their skills/experience on their page (I took mine off my page after this). Thanks. stmrlbs|talk 05:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Take time, take care of yourself :o)

Ludwigs - take good care of yourself. Do all that de-stressing stuff (you probably know the stuff I mean, lol!) If nothing else, get out into some open countryside (or a deserted beach or some real forest) by yourself, turn off the cell/mobile, stare at the horizon and just stop moving (apart from breathing, of course, it's important to remember to breathe ... ). Give that 20 minutes. Then break into gentle stroll, or lie-in-sun, or sit on log / rock / anything else handy. Take a full day. Better still, two days. Pesky (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hah! now you're just being pesky. --Ludwigs2 17:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like, quacks like ....... I am just me; as they say, "Get used to it!". Too old to change (much, though I'm open to nicely-worded suggestions) , too young to quit, and definitely old enough to know better lol! And you can always ear-cuff me over here Pesky (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

AGF

Please cut out the personal remarks. My involvement in the WP:SHERIFF proposal has nothing to do with you. You are alleging bad motives on my part and there is no justification for it. If you have a problem with my editing then please say so explicitly in an appropriate forum.   Will Beback  talk  07:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

When I ask you numerous times not to push on something because I'm stressed out and need some time to recuperate and reassess, and you refuse, that shows you have no respect for me.

When I ask you numerous times to explain yourself, and you ignore the request, that is IDHT behavior.

When you do both of these over an issue that is by any conceivable measure trivial, that is harassment.

I don't know what your motives are, and I don't really care. I'm asking you to have some f%cking consideration for me. If you want good faith, show some. --Ludwigs2 15:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're stressed out. However this proposal isn't about you. It isn't "your" proposal. Would you like me to userfy it, which would make it yours again and remove any need to make progress?   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I would like you to step back and stop badgering me over this trivial issue. I will get to it as soon as I can, which will not be all that long if you get off my back about it. thanks for understanding. --Ludwigs2 19:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't badgering you, I was posting to the proposal talk page to prompt folks to keep it moving along. You can get to it whenever you like. We don't need your input to keep working on it.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching this also Ludwigs2, you suggested to me some weeks ago that you needed more time then too. At some point you are going to need to separate your own editor-self from your editor-idea and let the community take the ball. Will is just asking for your plan on when that will be. Your questioning of his motives is rather unsavoury, it is a project page after all. I'm OK with waiting until May 1 for more input as a project page, although both then and now I'd urge you to start thinking about the option of userfication. If you feel you need breathing-space to work on it, that's an easy way to get there. Franamax (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

and again, I'll repeat - this is a trivial issue that you guys are getting worked up about for no particularly apparent reason. Please explain both why this is so important to you and why you refuse to give me the certain reasonable amount of grace that I've asked for. thanks. --Ludwigs2 00:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, your protests would carry a lot more weight if you didn't so often make insulting or patronizing remarks toward others. The Golden Rule and all that. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is trivial, since it's a standard matter of site governance. Pages put into project space are subject to the consensus of those editors who work in the project space, they are not in any way under the control of one single editor. You are being given maximum latitude here to develop your idea and submit it for wider scrutiny. But it's not an open-ended commitment for you to own a page. So let's go over your questions:

• It is important to me for several reasons. Firstly, it is a page in project space where I and anyone else may make whichever reasonable edits we propose, including assessing a failed proposal. I (and all others) have equal standing here, and we each have equal responsibility to move project proposals through development toward timely acceptance or dismissal. Second, been there, done that. Note how they preserved my original contributions of "a" and "the". Check the history too and note the one-year timeframe, and how the idea was extensively discussed and modified. No single editor claimed ownership, and yet the guideline emerged. My own ideas are still in there, but they're submerged in, and subsumed by, a lot of hard work by myself and many others. In contrast, you are presenting an idea which you claim as uniquely your own, and I can diff up the spots where you claim to be singularly able to make this proposal - so it is incumbent on you to defend and advance it if you wish it to remain in project space as being a current proposal. Thirdly, yes, you have come onto my radar in the first place through edits elsewhere on the project and I do take an interest when your nic appears on my watchlist. I strongly disagree with some of your approaches to editing here, make no mistake - that applies no matter how much I agree with your endpoints.
• As to your second request for explanation, who has refused any grace period you've asked for? Did I miss a diff? olive opined that the proposal should have more time, Will posited May as a closing period, I concurred and opined May 1 as a closing date. There is an entire April between then and now. What is unreasonable in that? Franamax (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Boris: sometimes I'm patronizing, yes. mostly I'm just right about things people don't want me to be right about. Contrary to popular opinion, in the land of the blind a one-eyed man is usually stoned to death as a witch.

@ Fran: I'm not objecting to you working on the TS project - who's stopping you? If there's something you do that I dislike we'll debate it when I'm ready to come back and do revisions and reassessment. all I want right at the moment is for you and Will to get off my f%cking back about it.

WIth respect to the time limit - there is no time limit, and consistently harping on the issue is POINTY silliness. frankly, Will (and now you) are acting like spoiled children, whining endlessly about something you wanted but didn't get, but unable to explain why it's so all-fired important to you. Give it up: work on the project, don't work on the project, but either way cut the attitude. I'm not interested.

End of conversation. further posts here on this matter risk deletion on sight per wp:HUSH. --Ludwigs2 05:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence

There's no need to mention the R&I case again on the case pages; it clearly isn't helping matters. NW (Talk) 14:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

COI

Just a note. Brangifer is very quick to cry COI. See here He has a clear history of trying to eliminate "fringe" editors via wikilaw rather than negotiating edits. By his definition, I would be COI for virtually all "fringe" topics. Tom Butler (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but there's a balance here. I'm more interested in correcting the problem than in punishing editors, so I'm trying not to overindulge on pointed evidence. BRangifer has his issues (as do I), but BRangifer does seem to have the best interests of the project at heart, and does have a certain flexibility. I'm ok with editors I disagree with so long as the disagreement is open to rational discussion. --Ludwigs2 05:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Tom, you say that I would think you have a "COI for virtually all "fringe" topics." That's not at all true. You fail to understand me. You have a COI on Electronic voice phenomena, and for very obvious reasons. (Are you denying you don't?) The same would apply to your wife. Everyone here knows you have a strong COI on that article/subject. That doesn't mean you can't edit it, but you need to be very careful since you have a financial interest in it. There is nothing in my attitude (here expressed very clearly so as not to be misunderstood again) that is in the least bit questionable, and if you understood the COI guideline you'd know that. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is public knowledge via IRS documents that no one has made money via the association except the vendors--printers, servers and such. In fact, I understand the need for a stable article and know better than to make one biased. All of the problems I had with the EVP article were with you, SA and his minions who insisted on using phrases intended to discredit the subject rather than settling for a balanced article. My interests here were public service at first but I have learned that Wikipedia is really a Skeptical propaganda tool for subjects Skeptics think mainstream science does not support. People trying to volunteer genuine support for the project do not stand a chance if they run into Skeptical editors. Look at how many you all have run off.

My best interest now is for the article to be as bad as possible. I am perfectly capable of telling the association side at its website.

You are speaking from assumptions about me ... again. Of everyone I have watched edit, you are the fastest to contest edits by charging COI or some other wikilaw that might help you prevail. Tom Butler (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

BR - I don't remember if we've had this discussion, but just for your information COI accusations should be reserved for cases where people are overtly trying to advocate for their own business interests. Using it loosely just waters it down and makes it difficult to use it when it needs to be used. I am (personally) not in the habit of checking up on people's off-wiki activities, and I have not seen Tom do anything on-wiki which would clue me in to what his offline activities are, and so COI seems like a real stretch of the imagination. Best not to put the cart before the horse: If there's nothing he does on the project that that would lead one to think he might be advocating for his personal business interests, then we probably shouldn't go looking off line to make the case that he's doing it anyway.

In other words, it's not a good idea to go off-project looking for things that editors might have a COI on. if they are not bringing it on-project in a reasonably obvious way, there are no COI issues.

Tom, word of advice. don't legitimize these kinds of arguments by bringing even more of your personal life on-wiki. If you don't have a COI, you can safely ignore spurious accusations. --Ludwigs2 18:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)