User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 10

The mediation
I appreciate the collegial tone of your response to my comments. I hope it was clear that I was addressing MathSci's interactions with other parties to the mediation, and not with you. I am however disappointed that you really think my edits and proposals regarding the R&I article were motivated by my politics and not by my commitment to WP policies, and my understanding that WP = encyclopedia means we must represent scholarly views accurately. Ramdrake gives a very different portrait of the mediation and the general situation than you do, so I imagine you will not agree with him. For what it is worth, I agree with his account. Lest you think that this is just another case of "everyone thinks that they are right and the other side is wrong," I really do not lump all other people I disagree with in the same category. Some it is true I think are trolls, but some I think were acting in good faith but did not fully understand WP policy; others I think were acting in good faith but have a skewed experience/view of academia (a failing which by the way I find in academics across disciplines). Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I probably over-spoke. This debacle gets on my nerves, and I will admit that (as Mathsci puts it) I get a bit intemperate dealing with it.  is there something you want me to revise that you think is clearly overstated?  I'm happy to do so if I've stepped over the line.


 * But don't take offense - everyone has a political stance on a topic like this, it's unavoidable. Basically the topic raises the question "are certain racial groups cognitively inferior to other racial groups?" Not having a political stance is a political stance in its own right; there is no neutral ground.  I completely believe you when you say that your commitment is to WP content policies, and I suspect that you are better than most of the people on the article at segregating (pun intended) your personal feelings from content issues, but when it comes right down to it - with tricky balance issues around primary and secondary sources, say - you are always going to lean a bit in favor of the sociological model and away from the genetic model.  As will I, though I've had a tremendous amount of practice at assessing research of this sort neutrally.


 * I just read Ramdrake's contribution, and I actually agree with a lot of what he says. He paints Mathsci in a brighter light where I tend to paint Mathsci in a darker light, and he displays a liberal/sociological bias (one that I share, but that I recognize as a bias), but on the whole his statement is sensible.  I'll tell you frankly, the difference between me and most of the people in this discussion is that (a) I don't have any firm preconceptions about what the article should say, and (b) I think that the article needs to start someplace and work its way slowly in to proper balance.  a lot of the conflicts we have with this article (and with similarly contentious articles elsewhere) because different 'sides' are trying to pre-cast the article whole-cloth, and get annoyed when the other 'side' creeps in little changes.  It would work a lot better if people gave up on trying to do the whole thing and settled down to writing the article one little piece at a time.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I will admit - in fact, I think I did in my own statement - that my bias is towards sociological rather than biological explanations. But I consider this a scientific stance (surely, everyone in the academy - chemists, biologists, psychologists, sociologists - not only claim where their disciplinary expertise begins, but where it ends.  I think Ramdrake is quite right to call attention to the fact that most biologists do not claim that these group differences in cognitive ability are inherited, so I think my bias is supported not only by what sociologists say about social processes, but what biologists say about biological processes.  Be that as it may, I first developed this bias when considering certain academic problems unconnected to the race & IQ debate.  All I mean to say is, a bias towards a certain general research program informs my views on this particular question - rather than my views on this particular question biasing me towards a more general research program.  Now, one might aruge that in a more general way preexisting political commitments biased me towards social science rather than life science.  I am sure that this is true, but I still have to point out again that the people pushing the genetic explanation are actually not geneticists.  The way I see it, and you can call me naive, my position is based on a strong commitment to biology (as an academic discipline and body of knowledge) and equally sociology.  I admit i have a problem with Rushton and Lynn but it doesn't have to do with their claims about IQ tests, which I accept as an object ob psychological expertise, but their claims about matters which fall under the expertise of biology or sociology.  If anything, I think this makes me rather conservative (small c) in my belief in academic authority.  Or maybe just a snob.


 * I wish ArboCom would just designate those people who, in their collective opinion, wrote the most constructive statements (I would not expect myself to be included) and just ask them to redraft the article. Instead we will have a long tiring drawn-out process to equal the mediation, and if we are lucky a few people will be mandated a 1RR and one or two others topic banned and otherwise we will be back where we started, a lot of effort that instead should be used trying to write an article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing everyone forgets is that (philosophically speaking) science is a political stance. The entire scientific enterprise is designed to imbue statements about the world with a form of authority that can overpower other forms of authority (so that statements by the Pope, or a king, or from simple common knowledge cannot assert themselves as 'true').  The pure social sciences have never forgotten that; the hard sciences largely have, which is why you get people making biological claims about human nature and acting as though they haven't said anything political (and also why Einstein took such a public stance against nuclear weapons - he realized that even physicists have a responsibility for the social ramifications of their physical discoveries).  If I were to give people like Rushton the benefit of the doubt, I would say that they opened a question with the expectation they could get a scientific answer that would be useful sociological knowledge; the scientific answer has not yet arrived (or at least, the social scientific answers are not yet decisive and the bio-science answers are largely absent), and the question has been co-opted by people on all sides as a tool in a lot of non-scientific political discourse.  Strictly speaking, the scientific opinion at the moment is something like "balance of evidence against, but not yet refuted". Believe me, when the question is answered scientifically, it will have profound political implications; imagine the fallout from a definitive scientific statement that races do/don't have have distinct differences in intelligence.  There would surely be an Obama speech, not to mention a horde of new policy implementations (god help us if it's 'do', that would be ugly).


 * re: ArbCom: I think that's the reason why they are prohibited from dealing with content issues.  It would be great if they could just appoint someone to write the damned article, but no matter who they chose some group of people would go through the roof.  What I'd really like to see is ArbCom take the time to strengthen civility rules (give wp:CIV some serious teeth).  it's high time that wikipedia stopped indulging the various forms of hysteria that currently govern articles like this.  but that seems like a remote possibility...  -- Ludwigs 2  17:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

RFAR Race and intelligence
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, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Typo in case pages
I'd be willing to be there's a template or form somewhere that clerks use to create the case pages, but for the life of me, I haven't any idea where they might be. You can always drop a line at the clerks noticeboard about the change to bring it to their attention. Shell  babelfish 18:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't even know that noticeboard existed. I'll take care of that now.  thanks.    -- Ludwigs 2  19:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

bad faith assumption
This is such a bad faith assumption that I am rendered speechless. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh my heavens, that is hilarious. Look, Eric, let me point out what should be an obvious fact that you (and Mathsci, and Hipocrite, and several others I could name) seem not to get.  People who run around insulting and criticizing others, who focus on punishment and sanctions rather than communication and cooperation, who indulge in name-calling and labeling in order to invoke prejudicial reactions from others - i.e. people who act like spoiled, pugnacious children - these people do not get to claim the moral high ground.  Not ever.


 * This is not a matter of who's right and who's wrong (which is a far more interesting question which we will get to if we ever sift through all the crap); this is a mater of whether one acts like an adult, or whether one doesn't. If you don't like me trying to help David understand this silliness the way an adult would, tough shit.


 * Now, you have two choices here. you can:
 * Sit back and consider what I have said for a while, choke back the rage that I'm sure it inspires in you, and respond with a thoughtful, measured discussion (which I will, of course, respond to in kind)
 * Get all up in arms about it and react in some unpleasant way, which I may or may not respond to as see fit.


 * Either way, thank you for lightening my morning a bit.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's about improving the encyclopedia. Your incivility here, and other's incivility elsewhere, is secondary. aprock (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. However, I suggest that it is impossible to improve the encyclopedia when articles devolve in the manner of Lord of the Flies.  Eric and Mathsci (and others) have decided to resort to playground warfare tactics to achieve their ends, and it has (unfortunately) worked well for them as a matter of practice.  It doesn't fly with me, though, and I do know how to deal with it.


 * If you want my advice, AProck, you'd do wikipedia a wonderful service if you sat down with these people and instructed them in the proper way to interact with others on the project. They won't listen to me (they've decided I'm the enemy, even though I largely agree with their content perspective); they might listen to you.  If you want me to be nice, that's easy - get them to be nice, and I'll follow suit automatically.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly think civility is an issue, and have explicitly mentioned Mathsci's issues. Civility is a problem to the extent that it harms the encyclopedia, and I think sanctions are warranted in the case of several of the participants.  I expect that if ArbCom takes the case they will handle all the issues, civility included, in a reasonable manner. aprock (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * let's hope so. I know I can be crotchety when pushed, but it's not my preferred state of being.  whatever willing, Arbcom will put a stop to the crapulence, and I can go back to being a pleasant person.  What is the procedure, do you know?  This stage determines whether ArbCom accepts the case, so it seems... is there another stage where they hear arguments, or do they just go straight to rendering a decision?   -- Ludwigs 2  19:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Ludwig2. Come on, read your comment again: you label me a "pseudoscientist", you tell David that I'm doing "standard hazing" and that my actions are designed to "make [him] feel paranoid". Please retract those statements. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I specifically pointed you out in what I said to DK, so there's no reason for you to personalize it. That being said, look at the facts:
 * You know as well as I do that the likelihood of a community ban happening here is almost zero (if DK were doing something worthy of a ban, he'd have been topic-banned long ago). That relegates this effort to an act of intimidation (i.e., paranoia inducing) rather than a meaningful effort at resolving a problem.
 * This is a standard hazing - I've been through it multiple times, and I've seen it inflicted on numerous other editors. A variable but identifiable coterie of editors (usually including people like you, Mathsci, Beyond my ken, hipocrite, Arthur rubin, etc...) rake some editor over the coals in ANI for some marginal offense - blowing everything out of proportion, speaking in uncompromizing and unflattering phrases, liberally using prejudicial terms, harping on obscure interpretations of policy, using sheer volume of noise to try to make the editor look as bad as possible.  whether or not administrator action results (which it rarely does) seems to be irrelevant; the only sensible rationale for the behavior is that it's a hazing designed to shame or frighten hapless editors into conformity.
 * A pseudoscientist is anyone who claims the authoritative mantle of science while ignoring the rules, methods, and standards of science. it's been a while since I've edited a page with you, so I can't say whether the term applies to you in particular, but my experience is that the most vocal of the pro-science, pro-skeptic editors on Wikipedia (which covers many of the people in the above-mentioned coterie) have a very poor grasp of scientific principles.  Mostly they seem to be offended by things that they have decided are non-scientific, and resist anything that resembles scientific logic if it in any way goes against their pre-given beliefs (while Popper rolls over in his grave and Feyerabend laughs raucously...). Now, if you are one of the few who actually does appreciate the nature of science, then explain why are you trying to win this battle politically on ANI rather than applying your scientific skills to the article?  a good calm, clean, cold application of scientific reason is precisely what this article needs.
 * Or are you trying to tell me that this whole ANI thing is something more than mere showmanship (drama-trauma to enrage and befuddle the masses)? If so, what would that be?  -- Ludwigs 2  22:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an attempt to topic ban an editor that has been causing disruption, and has been failing to take advice on how to avoid doing that. He is brought to ANI because prior actions have failed to make him listen, and it has nothing to do with "politics". Your bad faith assumptions are unhelpful, and you are misleading that editor into thinking that this is a battleground. And now I will ask again that you retract your statements instead of trying to justify them. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, and saying in ANI that the request is "trying to dispense with your oponents" fits perfectly with your statements. I just had to link to your comment so other would see why you are voting like that. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Convenient party-line, but it doesn't fit with the observable facts. However, you don't seem to be the least bit interested in looking at the the situation calmly and deliberately, so what's the point in talking with you?  go pursue your silly witch-hunt, and I will continue to defuse it to the best of my ability.  If you're dead-set on floating this discussion in the toilet bowl, I'm more than happy to keep trying to flush it.  -- Ludwigs 2  13:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And you keep giving that user advice that is filled with bad faith assumptions....: "Keep in mind, the expectation here is that if enough pressure is put on you, you'll act out in some stupid way and do something that will give an admin a real reason to block you. It's pure (if nasty) emotional politics,"


 * It you keep telling those editors that it's all a strategy to get them, then they are never going to see that they are good faith efforts to get them to edit according to wikipedia policies. You are just worsening the behaviour of those SPAs instead of improving it.


 * Sorry, Ludwig, but it's you who is making bad faith assumptions about me. You are the one who is supposed to assume good faith and retract his statements. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I don't believe I actually mentioned you. If you don't believe that what I said applies to you, then you are free to ignore it.  However, I do believe it applies generally, so I see no reason to retract it.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * missed your addition. I don't quite see how a die-hard effort to get multiple editors topic-banned constitutes a 'good faith efforts to get [those editors] to edit according to wikipedia policies'.  perhaps you could explain that to me?  -- Ludwigs 2  19:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Pleas, Ludwig, you made your comment right below my comment and in reference to my actions.


 * The good-faith efforts were already made and had already failed. So, it was now the time of propose a topic ban. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you hadn't done it, someone would have; the behavior is symptomatic. Seriously, Enric, while you and I may not have the best relationship, I have nothing particular against you.  If you want to personalize this, I can't stop you, but I don't see that that helps the situation any.


 * In point of fact, there is no end point to good-faith efforts: even if the discussion must turn to topic bans (or etc), the editors should still be treated decently and given the benefit of the doubt for the duration. They should not be subject to name-calling, insults, or other abuses in the process.  This is not a war-zone, and that fact that you and several others have decided to go on the warpath over this is foolish, and drastically un-wikipedian. In fact, my own good-faith efforts (before, during, and after the mediation) caused me no end of grief, as I was labeled as a partisan, threatened with blocks and bans, and sabotaged on the mediation page and in ANI. How does that help build a better article or a better encyclopedia?


 * I really don't think you understand my perspective (though I'm pretty sure I understand yours). I'm happy to continue talking about this in the hopes that I can get my point across, but if your only goal here is to get me to refactor, that is not likely to happen (at least, not without a far better argument than you've presented so far).  -- Ludwigs 2  17:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, you understand me perfectly and I don't understand your position at all. And it's me who is personalizing the dispute even although it's you who posted your comment right behind me below mine and in reference to an action I was referring to in that comment. You are the good guy and we are all obviously against you. I'm going to quote your own words "Plus, he thinks we're all too stupid to recognize that he's being uncivil when he does it indirectly like this. ".

No, seriously, no. I think that I'll just add a comment to the evidence page of the R&I case on how you have a battleground mentality, how you advice other editors on assuming bad faith, how you insult other editors, and how you insist that you are always right. I have a thin hope that arbs may actually do something about this. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Added, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Evidence. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin's claims about you
Ludwig,

Arthur Rubin is making some pretty serious accusations against you in this thread. I thought I should let you know about this, just in case you want to respond to what he's said about you there. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, you might want to look there again (at both the article and its talk page) sometime soon. Every change which was made to the article between January and the present has just been undone, based on the assumption that your mediation was invalid.


 * I’ll be going offline for a while shortly, so I may not be able to help you with this until tomorrow, if it’s still going on at that point. I hope you (and the other people who accept the results of mediation) can handle this without me. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't think that was going to happen? I'm sorry, I'll engage in content disputes, but I won't spend a lot of time arguing with people like Arthur and Mathsci who are more interested in political victory than article content.  The R&I article just isn't important enough to me to go to war with trolls over it.  I'll say what I want to say in arbitration, and then give the damned thing up as a lost cause.  maybe I'll come back to it in a year and rebalance it.  -- Ludwigs 2  14:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be getting attacked in the ArbCom case more than anyone else there. I hope you'll be presenting some evidence there in order to defend yourself.  As I think you know, I generally approve of how you handled the mediation, so I would be disappointed if you were to end up with a topic ban (or worse) because of this. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I expected that as well - that was the point of Mathsci's original entry into this discussion at ANI. Or do you think he jest randomly converted a thread about TechnoFaye into an attack on me?  There's more than one thing going on here, Occam.  I'll post something in arbitration when I'm ready.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

your humour
loved the "Didst thou bring thy I Pad?"...LOL what makes wikipedia interesting in the midst of such serious exhanges and sometimes angry exchanges too, is the presence of such healthy and sparkling humor... Thanks Ludwigs ... thanks to you I laughed out loud in the Emergency Room todayFragrantforever 06:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragrantforever (talk • contribs)

Archives of R & I mediation
I can't find the archives of the Race and Intelligence mediation. Any pointers? I want to look at people's opening statements and whatnot. David.Kane (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Check the links at the top of the medaition talk page, here. -- Ludwigs 2  22:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Terminology
I did consider trying to think of something milder, but I've read the evidence page: "adversarial to" is an accurate descriptor, even if not a diplomatic one. Thanks again for putting together that summary of the content issue. Steve Smith (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * my pleasure - anything I can do to help resolve this mess. -- Ludwigs 2  23:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Of Math and Men
Your last comment gave me a real LOL moment; I'm looking forward to working with you and Marie! I don't have as much free time during the week, but will do what I can. It seems that small changes to tighten the text and add refs won't be controversial at all, and larger issues we can bring up on the talkpage to work through together. Happy editing, Doc  Tropics  18:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 20:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom Evidence Discussion
Hi, I'm the IP that was posting over at the arbcom.

I would have posted this over there, but the whole section went nuts and somehow turned into a nasty debate about mathematics being a science or not.

To answer your question... Not really. Kinda anticlimatic, I know. Basically I stand by my assertion that claiming to be a science expert while simultaniously claiming it doesn't matter to you if people believe it is a bit of a headscratcher in terms of personal credibility. Mainly I wonder why the first needs to be said if the second is true. But then thats just me restating my original position more than saying anything new.

You should watch the temper though. I couldn't give a flying whatever about civility, but you did get baited into swearing on an Arbcom page (your post that included 'shitty'). It was roundabout sniping, but sniping nonetheless and the uptight folks that champion civility always seem to get blinded to the world in favor of lynching the uncivil guy. Just a thought. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * yeah, sorry about the temper: this silly debacle tends to irritate me. nothing personal intended.  and I'm not worried about the 'shitty' comment - mild enough expletive, and I'll deal with any problems it raises.


 * with respect to the main point, though, it's simple. I'm tired of being called s pseudoscience advocate (or any of a number of similarly disparaging terms that people like Mathsci somehow feel entitled to use). That's been going on for a long time.  I'm good with science, I can (and do) demonstrate I'm good with science on a regular basis, and I'm not inclined to put up with supercilious nonsense from people who talk out of ignorance or maliciousness.  I'm not trying to set myself up as some kind of expert, mind you, and this isn't some kind of 'credentials' thing for me.   I'm just nose-snapping people who have the bad grace to imply I'm an idiot.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite possibly the best answer I could think of for you to give. I can see your point of view a bit better and it makes a lot more sense than it did yesterday. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Aprock's changes to FAQ items
Ludwig, I think your input is needed in this discussion. Aprock is trying to remove several of the resolved points we agreed on at the end of mediation from the article FAQ, or modify them in order to claim that the discussion resulting in them involved nobody but me and Varoon Arya. I know that you based these points on more than just VA’s and my input, but I haven’t been able to get Aprock to understand this. Could you please try explaining it to him yourself?

The current version of the FAQ contains Aprock’s changes based on this assumption, so if you’re able to get him to understand what’s inaccurate about what he’s saying, I’d appreciate you also restoring the FAQ to a state that’s an accurate reflection of the mediation’s outcome. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For the third time now, if you have any references for editors other than you and User:Varoon Arya that support the language of the decisions in question, by all means present them. aprock (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In the case of the FAQ item regarding the hereditarian hypothesis, I’ve done this at least three times. I don’t know why you aren’t acknowledging it.  And in the meantime you’ve made changes to several other sections of the FAQ without any discussion, while still stonewalling (that is what you’re doing) about my explanation for the FAQ item that you removed originally. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest to you both that a talk page FAQ is not an appropriate place to engage in this kind of pettiness. AProck - please revert it to the original form, open up a talk page section so that we can discuss changes, or if necessary bring it up as a point in the arbitration.  otherwise, I may have to ask an administrator to look into your actions.  ok?   -- Ludwigs 2  06:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We've discussed the changes. If you want to ask an admin to look into my actions, feel free. aprock (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I don't really want to. If I have any desires in this matter at all, it's that you do not turn the article to trash through what is obviously just a clash of egos.  trying to slather the FAQ with caveats and minimizers is pointless, and makes the article look like a piece of crap, all so that you can feel like you've got some petty personal victory over Occam.  Either leave the FAQ in a sensible form and ignore it, explicitly (per wp:IAR), or bring it up in arbitration and ask to have it removed or revised in whole or in part.  but don't continue to modify it in stupid ways just to tweak Occam's nose.  see what I'm saying?


 * Pardon my bluntness, but I'm fed up with this kind of thing. see wp:BATTLE and wp:POINT.-- Ludwigs 2  14:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I merely updated the FAQ according to what actually happened during mediation. I only put the caveats in after User:Captain Occam insisted that the decisions developed by he and User:Varoon Arya be included.  I'm not the one battling here.  For the fourth time, and the second time on this page, if there are any diffs, quotes, or discussions that indicate otherwise, by all means present them. aprock (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * seriously, I don't want to be part of this fight; I just want people to settle down and get past this stuff. but I'll tell you what I will do - I'll clear up this question over at arbitration.  High time it was done anyway.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you think we’re resolving anything by discussing this on the workshop page? The arbitrators seem to be staying out of this discussion, and according to Coren’s comment here the next step of the arbitration process will be to propose and discuss a final decision, which means shifting the focus away from the workshop and paying less attention to it.  And in the meantime Aprock’s changes are still part of the FAQ, because he apparently isn’t willing to undo them himself, and he’s reverted every effort that other users have made to change them.


 * I believe you that the purpose of these changes was to annoy me, and he’s succeeded at that. I really would like to have some kind of assurance that his changes to the FAQ aren’t going to be there indefinitely for this reason. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that muddling around on the article talk page is going to much good either. and I don't think that AProck is particularly trying to annoy you (he's usually more reasonable than that), but I think you're both - as someone put it so delicately on the Arbitration page - stuck in a dick-measuring battle.  that's what I don't want to get involved with.  trust me, in the right mood I can be a bigger dick than just about anyone you've ever met; I'd appreciate it if you'd stop asking me to go down that route.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

SIgnature
Hi,

Okay no problem, but I have no time these days, if you just tell me how to lower the effect, I'll do it. Thanks,  - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 08:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * try either of these (pardon me for copying your signature for demonstration purposes) - lighter shade of gray or a slightly colored shadow:


 * or if you have a particular effect in mind, let me know and I'll work it out for you. -- Ludwigs 2  15:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI
This message has been sent to inform you about a discussion at WP:ANI. The thread is WP:ANI. Thank you. TFD (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Religion, science, faith and Pseudoscience.
In one section, I agree with you when you say "Science may be pseudo-religion" That's because Religion the way it actually is is real science (if one accept that real science should relate to understanding things exactly as they are). Modern science is not real science.

I was discussing a question somewhere: Why do some people have 6 fingers/toes?

A: Anytime a baby is born, there is a chance of a mutation, or a change from his/her parents which would be considered "abnormal". If that mutation helps the baby survive, then that mutation will probably pass on to his/her children. Mutations occur when the DNA gets altered in some way either through natural or unnatural means. Having six fingers is like being born albino, or without legs or arms, etc.

I just thought of updating the answer by adding (I do such things very rarely):

Mutation is an answer to "how", and not "why". Mutation is NOT chance. There is no question of 'chance' in life. Everything is thoughtfully 'planned' by God. It is because of one's past karma (deeds, doings), one is born in a particular family, has certain features etc. however weird it may be. for example: Siamese (conjoined) twins are born that way because they had to suffer in some way in this life due to their bad karma (misdeeds) in some previous life. God wanted them to be born that way. This is actually common sense. But unfortunately the most advanced biologists lack common sense.

What do you think? Mayurvg (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I think that the whole science/religion distinction is overblown. There is belief, and there are the reasons that lie behind belief, and science and faith merely have different ways of evaluating the reasons they accept.  Science is far more rigorous within the domains in which it applies, but fairly useless outside those domains.


 * Second, you're right, I think, that mutation is an answer to the 'how' question rather than the 'why' question, and you're also correct that science does not (as a rule) have much sensible to say about 'why' questions. However, the reincarnation/karma answer you give is only one possible answer to the 'why' question, and not even the only answer given within Hinduism.  not all hindus take karma to imply reincarnation, or believe that karma is part of a god-defined 'plan', and certainly that's not true of other religions.  In fact, a lot of faiths teach that 'why' questions are problematic in and of themselves - the need to know 'why' some event occurred can lead to misery, because it implicitly accuses the natural order of things of being unethical.


 * Third, if you try to argue that biologists have an incorrect appreciation of karma you're going to get your bubble burst very quickly. Scientists do not care to explain physical phenomena in terms of moral or spiritual precepts because moral and spiritual precepts cannot be examined within the restricted evidentiary model that science relies on to be functional.  Some scientists (a lot more than you might realize) will think that it's an interesting idea but (rightfully) note that it is not an idea with any scientific merits.  For example, I know that some physicists have drawn on the philosophical principles of taoism to exemplify certain ideas, and taoism has some interesting similarities to the karmic model, but none of those physicists would actually use taoism as part of a scientific argument (there would be no point).  other scientists won't be so nice about it.  You're going to have to recognize that Wikipedia will always privilege scientific explanations on topics like this because scientific explanations (no matter if they are limited) are factual.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "You're going to have to recognize that Wikipedia will always privilege scientific explanations on topics like this because scientific explanations (no matter if they are limited) are factual."


 * Yes, that's right.


 * As for the karma answer, I could only be brief, and I do not claim to have given an accurate answer.


 * I am "Hindu" in the traditional sense, but I would consider myself as being an adherent of sanaatana-dharma [eternal religion(here dharma actually means constitutional position)] and Vaishnava philosophy. (You will never find the word "Hindu" in the traditional Vedic literatures. It is a name that was given to the followers (or supposed followers) of sanaatana-dharma (the Vedic way of life)  by the Muslims.


 * Since it is my duty to preach, I just want to try to explain what Vedic Science says [it's a bit long and I do not wish to force anything upon you :-), but please read carefully and try to understand as much as you can]. I hope this makes interesting reading to you.
 * The following is a Vaishnava viewpoint of the Vedas [viewpoint according Vaishnava literature (commentaries on the Vedic texts)]


 * Science, according to Vedic literatures is:
 * The Vedas proclaim that God ultimately is a person, but is the Supreme, most perfect Personality, who has no cause, and He Himself is the "cause of all other causes", the Supreme origin of absolutely everything. A principal name of God given in the Vedic scriptures is "Krishna" who also has billions (actually infinite) of other names (like Vishnu, Narayana, Govinda, Hari to name a few). God possesses a form that is eternal, full of knowledge, and full of bliss. He has a spiritual (now it requires time to properly describe the meaning of the word spiritual in "scientific" terms) form, that is incomprehensible to us in our present conditioning (having a material body). He posseses infinite wonderful qualities and possesses opulences like wealth, fame, beauty, knowledge to the supreme extent (infinite wealth, infinite beauty etc.)


 * Some Vedic texts describe God as being nir-aakaara (having no form). Now this does not mean that God has no form, but that He does not have a form like us or any other living being we can conceive of. God is "He" because Vedas describe Him to be the actual and the only Male (Purusha or Param purusha (Supreme Male)).
 * The jeeva (soul) having disobeyed God (The Super-soul or Paramaatmaa), is trapped in various types of material bodies and is subject to repeated births and deaths, and the soul is what gives life to the body. Consciousness is a symptom of the soul being present. All living beings (humans, animals and even other gods (devatas or secondary directors of the universe)are the infinite non-material jeevas [living entities or souls (aatman)] and are actally infinitesimal in nature (spiritual sparks), and their real dharma (dharma actually means nature or position. Dharma does not always mean 'religion' and is actually not so easy to translate into English) is to serve God with love and devotion eternally. This is called sanaatana dharma (eternal constitutional position).
 * When the soul realizes his actual position and is ready to obey God and serve Him with love (this is the principle of Bhakti (Loving devotional service)) eternally, it is actually liberated and goes back to the "Kingdom of God" (known in sanskrit as "Vaikuntha" (a place without any misery at all)(Completely spiritual and beyond all the material universes {there are billions and trillions of other material universes far superior to ours}.


 * Now to show that Krishna is the Supreme Being (or the Supreme Personality of Godhead) is beyond the scope of modern science, but the Vedic literatures state that it is the highest truth.
 * The Vedas say this is the ultimate conclusion and the Vedas actually declare anything fully supporting this conclusion to be real science, and any other science that denies the above statements are said to be "pseudoscience" or "false science". (If we define Science simply to be knowledge of things exactly as they actually are). In fact, even deeply studying the Vedas without authorized guidance cannot make one realize this.
 * And the Vedas claim to be most authentic because they have been "spoken" by (originated from) God (Krishna). They originated from the "mouth" of God. (God has a form/body but it is nothing like ours (which is made of material skin, flesh, blood, bones, bile, mucus, and containing urine, feces, pus etc.) It is beyond our power of comprehension. More on this later. Mayurvg (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Mayurvg - the operative phrase in all of the above it where you say it's your duty to preach. that's the problem - wikipedia is not the correct venue for preaching.


 * Further, you have drastically misrepresented the vedas if you think that the vedas claim to speak some sort of uber-truth. The vedas say that there are understandings beyond what can be expressed in words and point in their general direction (as do the teachings of almost every religion and philosophy).  trying to cast the teachings of a faith as statements of concrete fact misses the point entirely.


 * More on this is not needed, not until you've considered the matter more fully. You still have your hand caught in the monkey-trap - you need to loosen your grip on your pre-conceived notions of 'vedic science', or you're going to remain stuck where you are.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there won't be more! Yes I shouldn't have posted my views on Wikipedia and I'm sorry. So I won't be posting any such 'preaching' in the future.
 * Just one last word: Those statements are not my pre-conceived notions. You're right when you say that the vedas say that there are understandings beyond what can be expressed in words. But, according to my understanding the Vedas do claim to speak uber-truth, which is very, very difficult to understand (All our logic and reasoning can fail). I have presented the statements as they are. I do not claim to be a very learned, nor do I claim to have a perfect understanding, but what I presented come from very authentic, and highly respected Vaishnava literature, and I have various pointers in my life to tell me that the statements I made are concrete facts. Vedas are not just teachings of faith. Faith is required in every field of science, and I just claim to have a certain degree of reasonable faith. To the degree one is sincere and humble, in trying to understand God, one can understand God (The Supreme Truth) to that extent. Not by one's own endeavor can anyone understand the actual purport of the vedas, but only by the mercy of God. Thank you for enlightening me however. Mayurvg (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Mayurvg (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't disagree with you at all. the only mistake you may have made here is to assume that Wikipedia has any real relation to life.  shanti.    -- Ludwigs 2  21:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I was just clarifying that I have not included any of my own views. And as you said Wikipedia is not the right place... i now understand that. Mayurvg (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc.
I wanted to be the first to welcome you into the project! We're glad to have new members, and if you have any queries, just drop me a line. Once again, welcome! — m o n o   22:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
If you really want the Israeli Apartheid mess, please feel free to take it off of my hands. :) Ronk01 (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel and apartheid
Per your suggestion, I moved the "list of candidate titles" table in Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy down from the "Opening statements" section to the "Discussion" section. From this point onward, you may wish to take ownership of the table (if you find it useful) and direct its progress. Good luck! --Noleander (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Taijitu
Hello. Shall we go through all this again? It's certainly fascinating to see how you jump on the support of some dubious newly registered socket puppet, but if you still feel like having an axe to grind because of your ridiculous Articles for deletion/Taijitu, I am sorry but I thought you were over it. I am certainly willing to move on, but I won't shy from notifying all these user if you think you can reopen the whole debate. It would certainly take a lot of time from me away, especially during World Cup, but, trust me, since I spent much more time researching the material, I am willing to go all the way and you know so. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * up to you, what you want to do. you know my position.  or maybe you don't...  -- Ludwigs 2  18:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Out for your June block? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * tsk tsk, very uncivil. learn to communicate properly and we wouldn't be having this problem.


 * The fact is, you have one source (Monastra) who's not particularly notable being reflected in a number of other non-notable sources, against the vast bulk of conventional use, which does not consider the roman shield markings anything more than a curiosity. I will keep reverting you until (a) I get some people in to look at the page who are willing to take the time to see how cheesy your sources are, (b) you get a bit of common sense and start working with me sensibly, or (c) you get bored and wander away.  I'd prefer B, but any of the three will do, because you are just, plain, simply in the wrong here.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Content fork
How is this not duplicative of details/see/main? Why do you feel another template is necessary? --Cyber cobra (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * details/main point from general discussions to specific, detailed discussions (down one level away from generality).
 * see (and related) point to related discussions without specifying the nature of the relationship (linking laterally without changing generality).
 * content fork is intended to point from specific, detailed discussions back to general discussions (up one level towards generality).
 * does that answer your concern? -- Ludwigs 2 22:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Item numbering in Aparth. mediation
Ludwig: thanks for mediating that apartheid topic. It looks like the numbering of the vote-choices got messed up: The numbers start over again at 1 after a collapsed section. I would fix it but I dont know how. --Noleander (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * oops - my bad. I'll fix that now.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ref desk headings
I'm sure you meant well, but recent consensus on the ref desk talk page is to not mess with headings just to fix grammar errors. There are two reasons. One is that it's impolite and unnecessary. More importantly, it breaks the links (the little arrows in the edit history) and thus causes problems for other users who rely on those arrows. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Bugs - needless to say, I disagree, but let me answer over at the reference desk talk thread. -- Ludwigs 2  15:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You disagree with what? That breaking the links is a problem? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Whenever you change a section title on a talk page, you should use either formerly, anchor, or anchord, to anchor the old title. – xeno talk 15:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which means the old heading will remain visible anyway, right? So why mess with it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * anchor won't leave a visible trace. I guess I should've prefixed my previous statement with "If you must change..." Anchors are a best practice when changing headers for whatever reason, though. (I make no comment as to whether those in the present case should have been changed.) – xeno talk 15:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If that fixes the broken-links problem, that's excellent. So how come no one on the ref desk talk page seems to know about it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno, poorly advertised I guess. Here's a step in the right direction: – xeno talk  15:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We remain deliberately ignorant of such things, so that we don't accidentally answer a question that belongs on the Help desk. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * that's nice to know, but I really don't see the technical link issue as such a huge deal. most people (to my knowledge) use the watchlist far more than they use their contributions page, and the watchlist uses the new link title on subsequent posts.  And most people have the brains to figure out what happened if they run across a link that doesn't work quite right.


 * besides - to be frank about the matter - I've had people change section headings in ANI to make snotty comments about me, and I've never seen a sysop complain about it there even when I wanted them to. why should I worry about a productive change on the Ref Desk?  If this is a serious enough problem to worry about, then fix it where people worry about serious problems, first. -- Ludwigs 2  15:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is an issue for many, please use an anchor if you are going to change headers (and I use my contributions more than watchlists because my watchlist has grown to an unmaneageable size). And note that it's not only watchlist and history links but static links on other pages. Brains or not, it's an inconvenience to follow a link that has been broken by an inconsequential grammar fix, and a small matter to make an anchor. – xeno talk 16:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * oh, yeah, can do. no problem.  I just didn't know about the template till now.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks... Many people don't know about it... Tell your friends =) – xeno talk 16:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

hope you don't mind my posting here
I thought I would answer you here rather than clutter up the mediation page but please feel free to move it there if you feel it appropriate. I'll say no more about it also if you'd rather. Or you can block me for expressing this opinion and "salt the earth" behind me. I hope not but it is your call. At the very least I should probably not be part of this particular mediation, since I have no faith in it. This is not to say that I do not respect some or all of the participants in it or because I don't believe in your ability to be impartial or fair or idealistic or intellectually honest. I have no doubt that you are all of the above. What I said was my evaluation of my personal experience on Wikipedia and which has been reported by RSs on both sides of the fence, not to mention various blogs, facebook pages, forums, and even throughout Wikipedia on personal editors' pages, etc.


 * Jerusalem Post article May 5, 2010,
 * AISH
 * Yahoo Answers
 * The Prospect
 * Terhan Times
 * Haaretz
 * Honest Reporting
 * Jerusalem Post
 * UK Telegraph

Honestly, I am of the opinion that: "Editing Wikipedia is one of the many stratagems of both sides." Why wouldn't it be? Wikipedia is a great teaching tool, the most accessed encyclopedia in the world and accessible in the public school systems of western democracies. The facts need to be there. I think Wikipedia is a great concept but one that doesn't seem to work well at the edges, anymore than the peace movement has worked for Israel-Palestine in the last 60+ years. WP depends on consensus, and consensus depends on collaboration, and collaboration is impossible for the ideologically driven.

I appreciate the situation with your Turkish friend. The Turkish situation is not analogous to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, however. Israel has not committed a genocide against the Palestinian people, though that is the primary view of many (if not most) anti-Israel ("anti-Zionist") individuals and editors here who have no problem calling any action against the Palestinians a "massacre," any population shift an "ethnic cleansing" and who reserve to themselves the right eliminate the Jewish state as stated in the Hamas Charter, an article I just started a week or so ago. My own view is that the Jew in the world in the 1930's is analogous to the Jewish State in the 2000's. I hope  you do not consider my views to be so egregious that I should be deprived of my right to edit Wikipedia. Stellarkid (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * a few points:
 * I'm not a sysop, I'm just an editor like yourself, so I can't personally block anyone. However, if your main goal on wikipedia is to fight real-world political battles then you will (and ought to) eventually get blocked.
 * the analogy to Turkey is a good one. Turkey has not been tried or convicted of any crime, and Turks do not as a rule accept the 'genocide' designation for what happened to the Armenians, and generally consider those who accuse them of it to be 'anti-Turk radicals'.  perspective please.
 * "Editing Wikipedia is one of the many stratagems of both sides" is true in the same sense that humans build houses to give field mice a warmer place to live. Wikipedia is supposed to be scholarly.  Frankly, the zealots with a cause to fight have the entire blogoshpere to hunt each other trying to spill electronic blood; I don't begrudge them that, and I get a little miffed that they just can't leave this tiny corner of the internet alone.  People who cannot respect knowledge for knowledge's sake but have to engage in bitter warfare over 'impression management' are just (excuse my putting it this way) a boil on the butt of wikipedia.  We have enough trouble over honest disagreements between editors without having to deal with dishonest disagreements.
 * what you do with the rest of your time on wikipedia is (currently) none of my business - I'll leave that for others to handle. but in the mediation I expect you to to try to resolve the problem rather than trying to aggravate it.  If you can do that, you'll be amazed at how well it progresses; if you can't, then the mediation is just a huge waste of everyone's time.  ok?  -- Ludwigs 2  16:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Just to expand briefly on your Turkish analogy.  The reason that does not really hold up is that Turkey is not under an existential threat from the Armenians, or from her (Turkey's) neighbors on behalf of the Armenians.  It is merely matter of her international reputation and possible responsibility for reparations, but not an existential threat.  Major difference, IMHO.  Stellarkid (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI: sockpuppet info
FYI: regarding participants in Apartheid mediation: Sockpuppet_investigations/Dajudem  --Noleander (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Spelling
It is Mahatma Gandhi, not "Ghandi", please  Jon Ascton    (talk)  06:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * lol! oops.  :-)  -- Ludwigs 2  07:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci and ArbCom
This has been on my mind for a little while, so I thought I should ask you about it. I remember you saying at least once that Mathsci is friends with several members of ArbCom, and that you suspected this is part of why he feels able to get away with the behavior he’s been engaging in recently. With that in mind, do you think there’s any danger that when ArbCom makes their eventual ruling in the current case, they’ll end up showing favoritism towards him? I’d like to think that the arbitrators are professional enough that they won’t allow their personal feelings towards an editor to influence their decisions, but my experiences with non-aribtrator sysops haven’t given me a good impression about admin neutrality.

If you do think that this is a danger, I’d also like to know if there’s anything you think could be done to minimize the chance of this happening. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Occam, I think it's safe to assume that one of Wikipedia's unwritten directives is to retain as many self-disclosed real-life academic editors as possible. For anyone concerned about the public image of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, keeping editors like Mathsci happy is a priority, even if that means pissing on a dozen or more editors of undisclosed educational and/or professional qualification in the process.


 * Mathsci isn't going to receive anything more than a gentle reminder to remain civil. Mathsci knows it, ArbCom knows it, even Jimbo Wales knows it. It's less about any particular article than it is about net gain for the project. As an "volunteer expert", Mathsci sounds good on paper, and has disclosed his real-life identity to enough people to ensure he receives good treatment. For those who don't know his real identity, he spices up his comments with inadvertently hilarious self-celebratory references to what he believes are the impressive details of his life. ("I was nibbling on some Lattarulla figs and goat cheese while listening to a delightful rendition of Bach's Partita in E Major in the conservatory this afternoon, when I received a most interesting request from the director of the Grande école near my home...")


 * Of course, Mathsci unintentionally reveals a great deal about himself when he writes such things, but no one is paying attention to any of that. What matters is that Mathsci is a net gain for the project, regardless of - and, if need be, despite - any damage his actual behaviour may cause. -- Aryaman (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) As a comedian once said: "The main value of living an honest life is that when bad things happen you have no one to blame except others."


 * As I've told you before (without much effect), you have to let go, chill out, and remember that you're not such of a big deal that the entire universe is out for your ass. Mathsci may have friends on the arbitration committee (I don't know if that's true or if that's just another elements of Mathsci's preening bluster), but if he does - who cares?  You have to trust that they will do the right thing for wikipedia, as best they understand it.


 * The whole attack paradigm that Mathsci is using (and others on wikipedia use - it's very common) is designed to make you feel isolated and afraid, so that you react unreasonably and make stupid, paranoid statements like the statement you made in this thread. The more stupid statements like this you make, the more likely it is you're going to get blocked or banned.  And frankly, if you can't get yourself out of combat mode you might need an enforced wikibreak to get your head together.  The thing you and Mathsci have both utterly forgotten is that this is about writing an encyclopedia, it's not a public park for you guys to build a piece of dramatic performance art.  I may (and do) nose-snap Mathsci, but at the end of the day I have no problem with Mathsci himself - I object to his behavior, and when and if his behavior stops I'll be perfectly happy working with him.


 * My advice to you (and pardon me for putting this crudely, but you don't seems to respond to gentle hints), is to grow up and grow some cojones. Stop jumping every time someone barks at you, get back to doing productive stuff, and learn how unproductive it is for you to take everything (or even anything) on wikipedia personally.  If you can't manage it you're just going to be a miserable sod, and where's the fun in that?  -- Ludwigs 2  14:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There’s something about myself that I’m tempted to mention here, because it’s relevant to what you’ve said, but I’ve learned from experience that discussing personal details in public is not a good idea here. I’m also not sure if I trust you with this information—I don’t have anything against you, but the only editors I’ve interacted with enough to say that I really trust them are David.Kane and Varoon Arya.  If I never explain this in any more detail, though, I guess I’ll just say that the circumstances of my offline life make it inevitable that improving Wikipedia articles about topics where I’m knowledgeable will be far more important than it is to most people.  It isn’t anything that could be considered a conflict of interest—the only effect that this has is making me have an unusual devotion to making these articles as informative as possible, as well as keeping them in compliance with NPOV and all of the other relevant policies.


 * The good of the encyclopedia is what I’m concerned about here. When I’ve been upset or worried about anything here, it hasn’t been because Mathsci’s personal attacks against are themselves upsetting to me—over the past six years I’ve been involved in internet drama that would probably make your hair turn white, and nothing that Mathsci has done or said during the time that I’ve been interacting with him comes anywhere close to the degree of what I’ve dealt with in the past.  What’s upset me in these situations has been the way Mathsci is essentially given free reign to violate whatever policies he wants on these articles and their talk pages, no matter how many other editors he drives off, and no matter how much the encyclopedia suffers as a result.


 * I wish I could get you to understand why this matters to me so much, because you seem to be assuming it’s a result of either emotional fragility or POV advocacy, and neither of those is correct. But as I said, I don’t feel safe explaining this, especially not in public.  If you can trust David.Kane or Varoon Arya to objectively judge whether my reason for caring about this so much makes sense, though, perhaps I could explain it to one of them and have them confirm it to you.  Does having an understanding of my reason for caring about things here matter enough to you for that to be worthwhile? --Captain Occam (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Occam - you don't need to share personal details: I fully accept that you have valid reasons for wanting to pursue this as doggedly as you do, and I trust they are good reasons. We all have our own 'things', you know.  Do you think I would be pushing Mathsci as hard as I am if he hadn't stepped over one of my boundaries?  All I'm trying to tell you is that with anything as complex as Wikipedia, there are always going to be things over which you have no control, and the only way to cope with a situation where someone else has control over something important to you is to relax and see the bigger picture.  Wikipedia doesn't care whether you win or Mathsci wins or you both lose.  If every wikipedia editor in the world got into a huge plane and the darned thing crashed, the next day there would be a huge new crop of wikipedia editors and nothing at all would have changed.  you don't win points on wikipedia by playing Teddy Roosevelt and charging up some damned hill; you make your point by being calm, quiet, consistent and clear over a long stretch of time, until even the most irrational editors can't help but see your point.


 * It's the internet - the very definition of a meaningless, transitory, illusory world. don't give it more reality than you need to.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid's comments
Hello Ludwigs2. I am a bit confused as to why you reverted the strikeout of Stellarkid's comments on the mediation page. Stellarkid was community banned at the time she made those comments, and per WP:BAN those comments should be removed. You say it is a "bad precedent" to strike out those comments, exactly what precedent do you think is being set and why is it "bad"? nableezy  - 20:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For the following reasons:
 * The person who originally struck them out was not a mediation participant
 * Mediation rules prohibit editing other users' comments
 * There was no discussion or consensus in the mediation that the comments should be struck
 * The comments are doing no harm; there is no reason to strike them out except that someone wants a bit of payback, and I do not want to set the precedent that that kind of behavior is acceptable in the mediation. Everyone is going to have to curb their baser impulses a bit so that the mediation has a chance at success. -- Ludwigs 2  20:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mediation rules may prohibit editing other users' comments, but Wikipedia rules prohibit banned editors from making comments. At the very least the "Statement by Stellarkid" should be removed. The precedent being set by allowing the comments is that when a user socks around a ban that their comments are accepted. nableezy  - 20:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * alright, I will remove that myself. but you do understand why I don't want regular talk page shenanigans to start showing up on the mediation page, right? -- Ludwigs 2  20:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. You need to "keep the peace". nableezy  - 21:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)