User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 16

Apology
Hello. I just wanted to apologize about my accidental rollback of your WP:WQA report. The touchscreen on my phone is a lil sensitive. Again, my apologies. Cheers! Apparition11 Complaints / Mistakes  05:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * not a problem, I've done it myself a couple of times. was it a watchlist undo link?  that's the one that trips me up.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * :) Thanks.Yep, it was a watchlist link. I just recently added it to my watchlist, and that was my first edit to it :) Apparition11  Complaints / Mistakes  05:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to actually bring that up over at village pump (technical). seems like an odd thing to have happen consistently.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I hear that. I believe that there is a javascript to remove the rollback link, but it is pretty handy when I'm on my home PC. It'd be nice to have an option to remove it when on a mobile phone where it's a lot easier to make mistakes. Either that or implement a confirm option. Apparition11  Complaints / Mistakes  05:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I posted something at Village_pump_(technical). feel free to comment over there, and let's see what people say.  if there's a javascript tool to axe it, I may just use that, because I'm a trackpad klutz.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool. I'll do that when I get home. I'll try to track down that script. The more I think about it, the risk/benefit ratio isn't very good. I use it occasionally, but no more often than I do, it doesn't really make up for just a couple of accidents. Apparition11  Complaints / Mistakes  06:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sighing
Hi, Ludwigs2. Just a quick bit of feedback for you. I see you acknowledge above that you try to be a pleasant non-dick, but occasionally fail. The following is one of those occasions. I hope my description of it comes across in a pleasant and non-dicky way, because that is certainly my intention. I apologise in advance if I fail.

A couple of times lately, your responses on the Reference Desk have started out with "(sigh) ...". Can I just tell you how much I despise it when people do that. Communicating is hard enough in real life, when we have all the visuals to help us out (seeing the lips moving; hearing the intonational nuances; and seeing the eye movements and other non-verbal body language, which they say accounts for over 90% of the meaning). How much harder is it when all we have is the written words. It's very hard, and even the most practised communicators don't always get it right in such a confined and restricted milieu. Compare reading a script of a movie you've never seen, with seeing the real thing on screen. Well, we online communicators only ever have the script (at best), not the movie. And the script we do have is often written by people who don't speak our language as well as we do; sometimes hardly at all.

When people intentionally "sigh" at me - either here or out there - I feel I'm being told I'm stupid. That's bad enough; but I also get that the sigher is coming over all superior and supercilious, which is not a good attitude for them to have, particularly in an environment where we're here on a voluntary basis, to help others (and that includes your fellow respondents as much as OPs). If your message is not getting through, the only party who has any work to do to make it get through is you. It's not about them, so please don't make it about them. Cheers, and I hope to see many more of your entertaining and erudite posts. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Lol - ok, yeah, you're right. My apologies, and I'll try not to do it anymore (it's just so frigging hard sometimes...)  .  -- Ludwigs 2  20:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know. My tongue is covered with permanent bite marks.  Maybe, one way of not being tempted not to write stuff that's not particularly helpful, is not to think those thoughts in the first place.  Easy.  Simple.  Just like life; if you want to have a perfect life, just don't do anything that's imperfect, and have no dealings with imperfect people.  Easy.  Simple.  Your task for today is to cure cancer.  Tomorrow, achieve world peace.  Wednesday, reverse global warming.  If you get bored by Thursday, I'll have something new for you to do by then.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is this?


 * as to the rest, I'm on it. I may need through next weekend, though; will that be alright?  -- Ludwigs 2  20:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Check out clips of the 2000 US Presidential debates between Gore & Bush. Viewers were turned off by Al Gore's sighing at George W. Bush. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it was between Bush and Kerry in 2004, and it was Bush who was doing the sighing. Cresix (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The nature of polemical politics is that people you like do no wrong and people you dislike do no right (even if they are doing the same thing). I'm thankful for people like Jack of Oz who actually express real and reasonable feelings; too much of wikipedia is emotional drama put on for the benefit of 3rd parties.  But, whatever: one must ignore the silliness and forge ahead regardless.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, it was Gore against Bush in 2000. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge it could have been both, but definitely Bush v. Kerry in 2004. Cresix (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm alluding to 2000 debate. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Guys, all politicians do that kind of thing. if it's not a sigh to tweak one emotion-string, it's an eye-roll or a strident declamation or a sarcastic comment or a crocodile tear designed to tweak some other emotion-string.  Politicians often win by making themselves look stronger and more moral than their opponents on purely visceral/emotional grounds; never saw one who didn't play that game.  If this is a debate about whether Gore or Bush is a better person...  there seriously has to be something more interesting to do somewhere.   -- Ludwigs 2  00:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For me it's not about Bush or Gore; I'm not too fond of either one of them. But the sighing that I remember received considerable commentary in the after-debate analysis. I'm sure if Gore sighed that got some discussion too. I just find it interesting. In any event, I don't think we need to be taking over your talk page any more, Ludwig. Thanks for hosting us for a while. Cresix (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note that neither myself or Cresix sighed during this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I sure as heck did, I just didn't type it. sorry, but I'm melancholic and sigh-prone; it's nothing personal.   -- Ludwigs 2  01:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Expert writing
Will you have a go at this? Online_tutoring, User_talk:Dkephart. The editor has a lot of personal background in online tutoring and asked if it was coming through in the writing. The writing has a lot of great detail but lacks a certain cool encyclopedic detachment. That's what I thought. Do you have an opinion on it? Ocaasi c 06:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look it over and give it a copy edit. Don't know a whole lot about online tutoring myself (except from a theoretical perspective - I've gone through some of the literature on the pros and cons of at-a-distance education - but I'll do what I can.  I can't quite figure out the second link you gave, though - where you just pointing to what you wrote there?  -- Ludwigs 2  15:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The second link is the main contributor to that article.  He posted a {help me} wondering if his background in tutoring was showing up as bias.  I responded to him about the difference between expert writing and encyclopedic writing.  I thought you might have a comment on my comment, or a comment for him. Ocaasi c 20:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

My talk page
You can find the request for full protection of Acupuncture in the archives of WP:RPP. In the past I have made similar requests on articles that I do not edit, when there has been obvious instability. Mathsci (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Request
Ludwigs2, could you please stop refactoring my comments on Talk:Acupuncture? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, could you please stop posting personal disputes on article talk pages. what you posted has no relevance to the content discussion.  If you dislike my behavior, you may post that comment on my talk page, on administrator's pages, at ANI - anywhere, in fact, EXCEPT ARTICLE TALK PAGES.  please keep our personal disputes out of article space.


 * I cannot stress this enough - personal commentary does not belong on article talk pages. If in fact you've restored that diff, I will redact it again tomorrow, per wp:CIV and wp:TPO.  If in fact you restore it again after that, I will see that as a clear indication that you are intentionally adding unnecessarily personal material to an already conflicted talk page, and that will be a matter of disruptive editing that I will take up with administrators.  I suggest you have the politeness and decency to remove it yourself before it goes that route. thanks. -- Ludwigs 2  08:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

Users Dreadstar, Sandstein, and Ludwigs2 are encouraged to read and reflect on the remedies applicable to them. All administrators who intend to enforce or undo an action linked to an arbitration remedy are advised to read the principles and remedies of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 19:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

WT:AC/N discussion
Hi Ludwigs2. This message is to notify you of my partial redaction of your message at WT:AC/N, and to briefly explain why I did so. I removed the sentences of your comment which referred to Mathsci, in response to a complaint the clerks received about that comment. With the Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling case now closed, the Committee and, I am sure, most of the community would like for the editors involved in the case to be allowing the matter to settle. That includes extensive post-case commentary or analysis—especially where that refers to your own markedly-poor interactions with another party to the case. I hope you agree with my redaction, which was performed in my role as a clerk. If you'd like to discuss it further, then I'd be receptive to that (I've now got your talk page on my watchlist), but please do not re-add the content that has been removed, nor add more content of a similar nature. Thank you. Regards, AGK  [&bull; ] 12:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have a problem with it - it's precisely the kind of thing that I believe clerks and arbiters ought to do. I'm a bit annoyed that Mathsci's complaints get much more attention than mine do - is that just a 'squeaky wheel gets the grease' thing? - but we can deal with that problem in the future, if need be.  it's all good.   -- Ludwigs 2  16:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-25/List of sovereign states
Please, move a couple of comments (15:05, 12 April 2011, 16:18, 12 April 2011) from "Limited addition proposal" to "Sandbox 3 (again)" section where they logically belong. Alinor (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Give me a bit on that. I was just heading out as I saw this, and I'll need to review the material again (I've been distracted by other matters recently). But I'll see to it.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no need to rush. Alinor (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The debate is nearing a partial consensus now, but we need mediator involvement. Can you join us again? We're at this point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-01-25/List_of_sovereign_states#3g Ladril (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you post at the top of the page where you moved the archive to and link to it please - beside the infobox would be most ideal. Thanks Outback the koala (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ sorry, thought I'd done that already-- Ludwigs 2 20:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion has degraded. I've been "assured" multiple times that debate on various issues will continue, but nobody, besides perhaps Ladril, seems inclined to engage me in real discussion. They're instead focused on forcing a consensus and making insinuations about my political persuasion. Can I request closing some of the threads and starting a fresh one? It'd be easier if we had bullet points outlining the various options with regards to each issue. I realise that everyone is "over it", but I'd like to at least examine all possible oulets before forcing a rough consensus.  Night w   09:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * before I respond on the article page, what exactly do you want to say over there that hasn't been said ten times already? The way I'm seeing this, there's a rough consensus on a majority of points, but you and Alinor are simply refusing to make any compromises at all on a few smaller points.  If you're not going to work with the other editors towards a common goal, mediation is pointless.  all of you need to commit yourself to some kind of binding resolution, because if any one of you refuses to do so, this debate will literally never end.


 * That's the way it is.


 * Right now I'm contemplating going to the page and saying that the mediation should be closed as irresolvable. the steps that will happen after that are as follows:
 * the current majority will return to the page and impose the current preferred version over all your objections.
 * you and Alinor will continue to object, and the wrangling will go on and on
 * eventually you will all end up in formal mediation or arbitration, where the decision will be taken out of your hands, and most likely several of you (particularly those on the minority side) will get topic banned from this article and all related articles.
 * Is that how you want this to work out? because if it isn't, you need to start actively looking for a compromise here. Convince me that you're actually interested in reaching a compromise and not just being a stick-in-the-mud, otherwise I'm going to have to start reaching for a close. -- Ludwigs 2  17:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the lateness of this reply. I'm in a remote region of Myanmar, and I only get internet access when in major towns. This reply is likely to be too late, but I'll give one anyway. I understand your frustration and your eagerness to be rid of this. But your comments about my receptiveness are not appreciated. I preferred an earlier sandbox, but I've now accepted this one as a starting point. I opposed a single list; the draft is now a single list. I opposed the use of the Vienna formula as a sorting criteria; the draft now uses exactly this. I opposed the rearrangement of columns; the columns have been changed. Plenty of concessions have been made. The points where I continue to hold out are more contentious and which should ideally be decided by a wider jury or those familiar with how best to handle them. You're free to perceive my involvement as a "stick in the mud", but I'm also within my right to object to something that I feel would not be an improvement to the project. You're free to close the case whenever you wish, but I'm also within my right to request further input. Agreed? Night w2 (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment/dispute resolution
Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Template
This is a fantastic template! I've used it several times...very nice and easy to use. Dreadstar ☥  05:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've mentioned you at AE.
Hi Ludwig, I’m just posting here to say that I’ve mentioned you here. It’s in the last paragraph of my statement there, not including my responses to other editors. You don’t have to comment there unless you want to, but I figured I should let you know about it.

This situation may look kind of familiar to you. It certainly seems familiar to me, especially the associated request for clarification. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nono
Template:Nono has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Distribution of wealth
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Distribution of wealth. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hey, good to see you. Please tell me if/when you are ready to work on Sheriff. Be— —Critical __Talk 16:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not really back yet - just taking care of a couple of issues that cropped up. but I'll let you know.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:R32 (New York City Subway car)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:R32 (New York City Subway car). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:C (New York City Subway service)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:C (New York City Subway service). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Countparams
Template:Countparams has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pregnancy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pregnancy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs, could you look at the following articles and then look at the prudish objections in the discussion, and then see if you really want to change the image? Human body, breast, buttocks Human penis  vagina Human anus.  People obviously want the image changed out of pure prudishness, not out of any concern for the informational quality of the article.  Be— —Critical __Talk 00:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * B - I have very clear views on images of this sort. I do not myself think this image is offensive, but I recognize that nudity is problematic for many people, and I believe we should respect that where possible.  On the pages you listed graphic imagery is necessary in order to properly portray the topic.  On the pregnancy page, nudity is not necessary to portray the topic, so we should not use nude pictures when there are easily available images that are equally informative without risking insult.


 * Sorry, but given the nature of wikipedia it is better to err on the conservative side, because if we don't there are a significant number of editors who will (with great determination and persistence) cram wikipedia full of nude imagery, either because they get turned on by the images or because they get turned on by offending other people. Wikipedia - being what it is - is what they call in the law an 'attractive nuisance'.  It attracts irresponsible and dysfunctional people and gives them an opportunity to act out in unsavory ways.  Best to keep it in check.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's an interesting take on it, kind of an argument from the overall good of the encyclopedia much like my position on removing chronically unsourced content. Personally, I would say that this article is an exception, as it is clearly about the body.  Also, any images should show how the pregnant body looks (both in parts and overall), and that's something I don't think is done nearly as well by clothed images: you have to use your imagination to know what a pregnant woman looks like if you don't have an overall image.  Anyway, you may be right in your argument concerning the general good of the encyclopedia.  Be— —Critical __Talk 01:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll see how the RfC goes. honestly that image is not something I'd put up much of a fight about, and I do get your point.  for me it's always a balancing act of trying to be completely informative without stepping unnecessarily on peoples' toes, and the balance could tip either way on this one.  I get much more irritated when I see people throw in images that are clearly intended to titillate or offend rather than inform (and you can always tell when that's happening by the volume of their wp:NOTCENSORED arguments - I swear that's one of the most abused policy points on the project).


 * But anyway, I don't want to get sucked back into wikipedia right at the moment. I'm curious why I'm getting so many random RfC referrals - that's 4 or 5 inside of a week.  I'll have to look into that. -- Ludwigs 2  02:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice
to have you around if even for a short time (and even if we do not agree.) Welcome back in fits and starts, bits and pieces, heres and theres, now and thens. Good wishes.(olive (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC))


 * ah, yeah, well… I just have a load of cr@p to take care of in R/L, so I can't really afford to get tangled up in things here at the moment.  sooner or later though.


 * and just so you know, I don't disagree with your argument all that much. I'm just trying to spell out a principled argument so that the decision gets made on the right grounds, rather than on the kneejerk reactions that normally dominate image debates on wikipedia.  I won't be unhappy if the picture stays. -- Ludwigs 2  14:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say that your comment here expressed my own viewpoint more articulately than I was able to do. So thanks, and nicely said. :) MastCell Talk 18:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I’m also glad to see you’re back. Is there any chance you’ll be working on your “town sheriff” idea more anytime soon? I think Wikipedia needs something like that, and I was disappointed when you stopped working on it for a while.

If you saw my comment here on August 9th, you’ll know what sort of thing has been keeping me occupied lately, although even if you didn’t see it you’d probably be able to make a pretty good guess. There’s a chance that things could improve in a few weeks, though. If they do, I’d like to help you with your sheriff project some more, if you’re still interested in that. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ludwigs, we talked once at the village pump, and I was sorry to hear you were away from the project for I always found a wealth of good sense in your comments when I happened on them, even if I didn't have a clue what the subject was about! Personally compared to some discussions on wikipedia real life keeps me fairly sane. Its always good to have someone around (on wikipedia) who can basically understand what one is saying even if one isn't saying it very well, and even if they don't agree with it entirely. DMSBel (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism cleanup
I'm trying to clean up Young Earth Creationism, which you tagged about a year ago. You claimed it overused the YEC acronym (which I've now ensured only appears in paragraphs where it is previously parsed), but you also said the article was "listish", and I just can't see what you mean there. If you're still bothered, I'd appreciate it if you'd at least pop over to the talk page and let me know what you mean and how you'd suggest fixing it - I'll do the donkey work if need be. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get involved in anything new on project, so I'll trust your judgement. -- Ludwigs 2  15:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks
If you're having trouble discussing things with Roux, please take it to a dispute resolution forum rather than resorting to personal attacks. It will only inflame the situation and lead to further conflict. Kaldari (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * well, I can't disagree with you - I'd have removed that myself in a few more minutes - but I do which you'd cull both sides. frankly, anyone who suggest I have a 'retrograde and puritanical mind' really is a you-know-what, and that's hardly less inflammatory than what I said.  but I'll fix that one myself.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mothballed
Template:Mothballed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Argh
What are you talking about - did I make a reference to the twin towers without realizing it, or did you drop this on the wrong page? -- Ludwigs 2 01:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My fault, somehow it looked like your comment..my bad...sorry.. Dreadstar  ☥  01:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * lol - no problem, it happens. should we reposition your comment?  -- Ludwigs 2  01:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! No, I've cooled down a bit, so thank you for being a buffer.  No need for me to have done that in the first place.....lordy, I guess I need a break!  Here, maybe this'll make up for it:


 * It's funny, but I didn't realize until that moment just how much emotion was still inside me regarding 9/11. Interesting where personal revelations can come from....   Dreadstar  ☥  01:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you a New Yorker? It's understandable that there's still a lot of pent-up emotions over 9/11.  for a lot of reasons, I don't feel it as much as most (partly but not completely the almost 3000 mile distance between me and NY), but it was a major trauma for everyone, and there are going to be long-lingering effects from it.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yeah, I worked down there for over ten years...lived in NYC for many more, still have a place there...was just lucky to have escaped 9/11, where several of my friends and co-workers did not. In my travels, it's truly amazing the compassion from people who weren't there or had even visited there.  An amazing connection between human beings.  We feel it.  Together. Dreadstar  ☥  02:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Never think that I believe you're a moron. And don't confuse me with one either. Dreadstar  ☥  04:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * yeah, sorry. conversations like the one on that page really stress me out. I find myself waffling between the competing beliefs that some of the participants - not you, but I think you know who I mean - are either too stupid to know how stupid they are acting, or else complete trolls intentionally acting stupid to make things miserable.  The inability to decide which case it is makes me very irritable, and I tend to take it out on people indiscriminately. sorry if you ended up in the bombing zone.


 * and yes, I do believe these people are acting stupidly in an objective, measurable sense of the term. I'm just hung up on the question of intention.  There are good, reasonable arguments to make for using such an image - I don't think those arguments hold, myself, but I recognize a good argument when I see it.  I just can't understand why someone would latch onto a truly lame argument and defend it like it was the first-hand testament of Jesus.  Gives me a frigging headache thinking about it.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * God in heaven, I wasn't blaming you...just making sure you didn't actually think I thought you were a moron. :)  Jebus!  Dreadstar  ☥  06:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * eh, like I said: bad mood, bad week, bad life. If you gave me a bouquet of flowers right now I'd whine about hay-fever.  Pay no attention to the morose dork behind the curtain, please.    -- Ludwigs 2  06:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Bile
I don't have bile dripping out of my nose, but courtesy of the presumably unintended humour in that statement I now have Dr Pepper dripping out of it. → ROUX   ₪  01:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * at least I made you laugh. that's something.    -- Ludwigs 2  01:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy
Reading your last few comments, I'm having a hard time understanding how you can accuse other people of being "rude." You might want to review the series of disparaging remarks you've made in just the bottom section of that talk page in the context of your objection. Nathan  T 19:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You're making the assumption that being polite and civilized means suffering willful fools gladly. In other contexts I would agree with you, but on wikipedia suffering willful fools only leads to those willful fools running amok with wild abandon.  I do lose my temper here and there, but mostly what you're seeing is intellectual disdain for substandard reasoning.  Sorry you find it offensive, but it is necessary (if not as productive as one might hope). -- Ludwigs 2  20:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty common strategy for Wikipedians and not surprising. What is surprising is using that strategy, and then deploying an objection to "rudeness" as an argument in a discussion. Nathan  T 14:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nathan, stop beating around the bush: spit it out or drop it. It's unlikely you will win this argument with me in any case, but you're surely not going to win it through indirect speech.


 * I'll give you some food for thought while you're contemplating your next move in this discussion. Wikipedia as a whole is in the sorry state it's in because it's dominated by bullies. There's a reason for this: bullies anticipate that nice, reasonable people will not fight back (because fighting back is aggressive and mean, things that nice, reasonable people feel guilty about), and so bullies use people's politeness to dominate situations and drive reasonable viewpoints away.  In  the non-internet world, bullies are kept in check by social pressure (the huge weight of non-verbal communication - it's why even your worst high-school bully will slink off when a mousy old teacher cocks an eyebrow at him) but social pressure of that sort does not exist on the wikipedia (or the internet fort the mot part) and so bullies own any topic they set their hearts on, just by being sufficiently assholish that other people back away in disgust.  The only real choice I have on pages like this, then, is to be as much of an asshole as the people I'm talking to (and hopefully no more), on the thought that it's better in the long run for a talk page to deteriorate into complete crap then for zealots to be allowed to dominate the page and impose their will on the article through sheer bullying.  If you can give me a better way, I'll use it, but if you're suggesting that I should not 'be like them', well… being like them is currently the only effective way to be on pages like this.


 * I frequently suggest that wikipedia should establish some strong and policies and procedures for dealing with incivility. Every time I do people get in an uproar because they don't want to have their 'freedoms' restricted.  well, what you see on the Pregnancy talk page - that is what unrestricted freedom looks like.  If you find it uncomfortable, I'm sorry.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Incivility
Okay, I'm taking it to your talk page as you requested. I'd like to save you as an editor. I don't know what I can say to appeal to your good side or reason which will help you to decide to stop being uncivil and poisoning the atmosphere. I don't believe that you are only doing it to people who are uncivil to you, because you were continuously uncivil to me after we started disagreeing on substantive issues. Not that people being uncivil to you is an excuse to be uncivil back. In short, I want you to do what you said you were going to do, that is to come back and act worthy of becoming an admin. I was looking forward to working with you on the Sheriff project. Be— —Critical __Talk 20:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, I'm not sure I really care. Editing Wikipedia seems to make me angry and unhappy - everywhere I turn I run into some twerp so obsessed with getting his way the reason, common sense, human decency and all the other civilized virtues are tossed in the dung heap.  It makes me see red; I'm sorry if my anger gets misdirected, but I don't really feel sorry about being angry (that anger shows I still have a conscience).  Wikipedia hasn't got the balls to turn itself into a place fit for civilized human beings, and leaves me the choice of letting all the stupid shits have their way or fighting with them tooth and nail to try to bring things back into perspective, and both those options make me miserable.


 * If the project likes being a white-trash encyclopedia - like one of those back-woods auto garages where garbage and useful stuff are tossed willy-nilly into boxes, everybody talks shit about "them people", and each wall has some greasy pinup girl leering out at customers - then I'm not sure I want to be part of it at all. -- Ludwigs 2  02:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Join the club. Peter jackson (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sig
I made it bold and removed the link to contributions. Is this better? Ten Pound Hammer and company • (Otters want attention) 17:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks.   -- Ludwigs 2  17:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks, incivility, threats, and "content-relevant discussion"
I'm afraid this isn't something that gets to be so easily dropped. It was, you may recall, you who diverted the conversation into discussing the behavior of editors and the potential intervention of the ArbCom. I was responding to it, and perhaps it would have been better on your talk page, but my points stand. Not only did pepper the discussion with threats of "bringing in" admins, you advanced it to suggesting that your interlocutors would behave badly and suffer consequences from the ArbCom, and when called on it you called me an idiot. Now you're doubling down by coming to my talk page and calling me stupid. I wasn't acting out of offense-- seriously, words from a person I don't know and will likely never meet, directed me, someone you don't know and will likely never meet don't have much capacity for offense-- but simply pointing out the facts. Being a dick is just going to make you enemies, not convince anyone of anything, nor resolve any disputes. Ever. You certainly don't have to be behave this way, and you might surprised by the results you can get with the alternatives. siafu (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If reason and civility made any headway in discussions like this, I'd use nothing else. When I am confronted with people who have the reasoning skills and moral development of 14 year olds, however, there's not much to do about it.  I don't really care if you dislike me - part of living in civil society is dealing reasonably with people you don't much like - and I don't really have a problem with you.  But if you use the talk page to accuse me of crap I haven't done, you're not accomplishing anything except giving the truly infantile trolls there emotional ammunition to attack me with.  Would you prefer if I characterized your actions as wise and intelligent?   that would be a lie.


 * You can be rude to me if you like (rudeness doesn't bother me), but keep the discussion on content. As far as I'm concern any other editor who decides that the article talk page is a good place to discuss me as an editor is fair game for anything I want to say about them in turn; and believe me, I can always give better than I get in that kind of game.  if you don't like it, I'll happily provide you with a link to wikiquette.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "If reason and civility made any headway in discussions like this, I'd use nothing else." I invite you to review how much headway you're making with your current approach. And "as far as you're concerned" doesn't stack up with "as far as wikipedia policy is concerned."  This is not a war, giving as good as you get will go nowhere but down, and I once again invite you to review WP:NPA, and to retract the personal attacks you have made at Talk:Pregnancy.  The fact that you are arguing, alone and solely, with 6-7 other users, and insisting everyone else is the problem should be some indication of the consequences of your actions in this case. siafu (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Saifu - One of the things I am sure of is that I understand how to reason correctly. You should take the fact that no one has convinced me of your point of view as a sign that no one has made a sufficiently convincing argument.  I don't really care if I have to argue with six or eight hundred people - when I'm wrong I admit it, and when I'm not I don't.  I understand you're arguments better than you do; I know precisely what each of you is trying to say, and I can gauge fairly well how much emotional investment each of you has in the issue by the extremes you push logic to in order to defend your position.  If I wanted to argue your side I could do it and do a better job of it than you (which I know, because when I structure my arguments I actually take the time to think through the opposing positions).  I cannot help the fact that you all refuse to adopt a reasoned approach to the problem, and I find it very irritating to deal with people who apparently cannot manage to string two terms of a syllogism together, and who think that me pointing out how bad their reasoning is is some kind of personal attack.  If you don't like the fact that I criticize your failures of reasoning, learn to reason better.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you can reason so much better than the rest of us, you can surely parse the first sentence of WP:NPA: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia." Be sure to point out the section where it says ~"Except for when you're really sure you're justified in doing it." siafu (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Siafu, Ludwigs2 is far from being "alone" on his side of the discussion at Talk:Pregnancy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He is certainly alone in arguing that his behavior is acceptable (and even called for in the situation), unless you'd like to support that position as well? I wasn't referring to the discussion about the image proper; Ludwigs2 is not really engaging in arguments about that nearly so much as simply accusing those who disagree of not being able to reason, being idiotic, stupid, arrogant, and emotionally invested, as well as threatening admin action. siafu (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Siafu, you can keep fuming on about whether what I said was civil (though I don't know who you're arguing with). however, you can't really argue that what I said was wrong, and if you can't see the reams of rational arguments I've made in that discussion then you really ought to change your username to MrMagoo.  If you want me to give you diffs of them, I will.  do you?  -- Ludwigs 2  18:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My arguments on the topic are at Talk:Pregnancy. siafu (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * as are mine. -- Ludwigs 2  19:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am arguing with you. The real problem, Ludwigs2, is that I 'can' argue that what you said was wrong, and I do have the right to disagree, as does everyone else.  I've presented rational arguments myself, which you are free to disagree with, but you have only occasionally responded to them, often by misconstruing them. I have not, however, resorted to making threats or calling you an idiot, stupid, arrogant, too "emotionally invested", or unable to reason; in fact, I haven't made any comment about your character or person at all, just your arguments and your actions.  These tactics are the ones you have chosen to adopt and bring into the discussion.  You claim that it's just tit for tat, or giving as good as you get in your words, but this is not only untrue in fact, it's an extremely poor defense as it violates wikipedia policies (WP:NPA, which in unambiguous) and guidelines (e.g., WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND).  The reason I am reluctant to let this go is that I am not in the practice of cowering in the face of bullying tactics, and moreover this sort of behavior is what makes wikipedia unpleasant.  I've been reluctant to start on RfC on your behavior here simply because I'm going to be away from the internet for a week and wouldn't be able to participate (as any user RfC must be open for discussion of both the opener of the RfC as well as the subject), but you should not expect that I will just walk away, cowed, if you redouble the attacks. siafu (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your reasoned arguments extensively on the talk page - as you well know. In fact, you still have not responded to the last extensive post I made to you.  You are making the classic mistake of believing that your right to speak your mind freely somehow automatically implies that anything you say should be taken as reasonable and valid.  That is not the case.  I am not trying to cow you away from making an argument, but if you make a bad argument and insist upon it unreasonably, you can expect to be scorned.


 * As to the rest of your post: I suppose the 'in thing' these days is to berate you for making threats. I'm not going to bother.  Fell free to do what you think is important and useful.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2, I'm not up on the latest blow-by-blow, but I have generally been following things and I believe I can point to the exact post on the Pregnancy talk page where you declared your intention to "take the gloves off". My impression is that you feel imbued with three great pieces of knowledge. One is that you are possessed of absolutely superior reasoning skills, and concomitantly that all others should be able to perceive your superiority. The second is that after you have patiently explained your superior reasoning more than once or twice, those who still disagree with your thesis are perforce not worthy of consideration. Thus they are idiots or their ideas are idiotic, and they need to be scorned with every tool at your disposal. The third is that you often profess to know exactly why they are doing what they do, to you it seems to be all so familiar of a tactic, and you will counter with some oh-so-familiar tactic of your own.
 * The way I'm looking at it, you are engaging in a disruptive pattern of behaviour. You are over-personalizing on-wiki discussions and explaining it all with, so far as I can discern, "too bad, I know it's wrong but I'm like that anyway and I won't stop". Can you see how such an attitude is inimical to creating a collaborative work? Further, can you see what a poor work this would be if it only reflected your own (or my own) view of how things should be? Please dial it all back one whole notch. Your stated outlook that you are just here to wrap a few things up then return to wikibreak carries a connotation that you may feel you have "nothing to lose" in your current edits. That's a bit of a red flag when it comes to administrative evaluation of your actions. Franamax (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Franamax: let me be clear.
 * with respect to point 1: I do have superior reasoning skills to most people. This is a matter of long training and great personal dedication, and I am not ashamed of it. I don't want people to respect my superiority, I simply want them to reason adequately, which will do just fine by me.  However, I do not accept emotional reasoning as a substitute for intellectual rigor, and my insistence on that tends to piss people off.  I am aware of this, and have mixed feelings about it.
 * with respect to point 2: it's fine with me if people disagree with me - there is nothing (literally nothing, excepting sex, and not always sex) that I like better than a brisk intellectual debate. I do not mind one bit explaining my position in excessive and exaggerated detail, and I am easily infatuated with a solidly brilliant opponent, but I get annoyed with people who refuse to accept the possibility that they might be wrong to the point where they stop producing decent arguments and start producing drivel.  I always accept the possibility that I might be wrong, which is (to a large extent) why I have superior reasoning skills.
 * with respect to point 3: As I have said, you can critique me for being rude, but you cannot critique me for being wrong. I know a stupid argument when I hear it, and I have no bones about pointing it out.  If you were wise, you would consider that at good thing.  If I call someone an idiot, it is with the (clearly misguided) assumption that they will stop and reflect on whether their argument is actually idiotic.  That's what I would do, but I seem to be alone in that urge.
 * The rest of your post doesn't really merit much discussion. Yes, I know my behavior is sub-optimal.  But I'm in a bad space (mentally and in the real world) for the time being, and I just don't have the emotional reserves to be patient with the kind of adolescent hissy-fits that drive these discussions.  Stupid is as stupid does, and anyone who doesn't want the label shouldn't sew it into their own collar.  I really wanted this whole discussion to end simply and civilly, without a lot of confrontation, so that I could go back to my own misery in peace.  But fuck if I am going to let bad reasoning have its way just because I'm sick and tired and the people who use it are loud-mouths.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that's a bit of a screed and we can discuss those issues here or offline. I hope you have enough perspective to recognize that what you just posted here in and of itself pretty much justifies a preventive block to avoid disruption. Yes, that road has been travelled before, but I have the diff where you begin to put your philosophy into practice this time around. It really would be better if you thought about things just one more time, you're saying right here that your behaviour mode is not achieving optimal results - maybe you could tweak it a tad. And just some personal advice - it's not always a good idea to go through life believing that you will always have the superior reaoining skills, the more comprehensive knowledge, the better understanding of others' motivations and tactics, privileged access to the state of being "right". My experience is that highly intelligent people need to stay keenly aware that yes, they could also be wrong. Franamax (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fran, the problem is not that I'm intelligent or that I think I'm always right - the first is true and non-problematic; the second false, and I actually find the accusation fairly insulting. The problem is that I am short tempered about certain behaviors, ones which generally fuck up the decision-making process on project and cause endless amounts of headaches. You seem really annoyed at me for calling a couple of people idiots, and not at all annoyed at those same people for casting me as some sort of rabid nipple-hating censor.  You seem to be unaware that the primary argument used to support the image is that any editor who oppose it is ipso facto unworthy of being listened to, a purely political ploy designed to disenfranchise disagreement.  You (and siafu, and a few others I could mention) have got your priorities all wrong, focusing on superficial unpleasantness and ignoring the really destructive behavior that prompts it.  Yeah, I probably shouldn't be unpleasant, that's an issue that I work on and often fail at.  But if you think my unpleasantness is the most serious problem on that page you are missing the point so thoroughly that I do not even know where to begin with it.


 * Now if it will make you feel better to yammer at me some more, go ahead and get it out of your system. You're not telling me anything I don't know, and you're making me feel attacked and irritable, which is kind of counter-productive if you want me to cool off.   whatever.  But I suggest (respectfully) that you put your time to better use thinking about the real problems on the page.  -- Ludwigs 2  09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Your last edit on Talk:Pregnancy
I politely suggest that the entire second paragraph of your last contribution to Talk:Pregnancy is extremely unhelpful. I think you should edit it, and remove anything that might even be remotely construable as a personal attack. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to remove the one offensive word, and to rephrase things somewhat to be more congenial (which I'll do after I've posted this), but I do not think the accusation of page-ownership is unwarranted, and I think it's best all around if BC ceases to assert that he can dictate who does and does not participate in the RfC. If you disagree, please explain to me why and we can discuss further potential revisions.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The right way to deal with page ownership issues is to calmly bring attention to them from outside editors. Getting worked up yourself only makes it harder to untangle the mess.  Nandesuka (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand and respect that as an ideal. However, my time on-project has led me to believe that that is not the way things actually work.  You don't think I'm naturally this coarse, do you?  Well, maybe you do, but in fact I learned to adopt this appearance after the first three times I got blocked by for no damned reason except that some well-established troll wheedled an admin into blocking me.  As far as I can tell, wikipedia has the kind of political system that would be invented by sixth-graders if they were left to themselves, and all of the high-sounding ideals people profess are simply the kind of lies sixth-graders tell each other when they're setting each other up for a pratfall.


 * Sorry if you disagree, but that's what I've learned from my experiences here.


 * If you want me to delete something more, simply ask and I'll do it. otherwise I'm staying off the page until the RfC is closed.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification
I've reported all three of us here: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents--Tznkai (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Red-Green Alliance (Denmark)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Red-Green Alliance (Denmark). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE
Please review a request for Arbitration Enforcement regarding your conduct located at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs, don't let them get to you. We come from different perspectives, but you are now the voice of reason among an unreasonable crowd.   Robert Currey   talk  22:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL - Story of my life. Why am I always obliged to be the grownup? it truly sucks.    -- Ludwigs 2  22:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes - balance is never easy. I would like to send you a hard-copy of my recent paper on Carlson in the Journal Correlation, if you are interested.  It's not available on-line yet and can be reached via   Robert Currey   talk  23:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just read your response Ludwigs, and the suspicion you mentioned: I'm afraid I share it. I'm concerned that this action was taken against you because you have maintained rational arguments that cannot be dismissed by the simple accusation of you being a 'deluded believer'. I also empathise with your feeling that speaking up for fairness has caused you nothing but grief. I hope you realise it is appreciated. I wish I could do more myself but at the moment I am coming to terms with a recent bereavement and will only be dipping into WP as time, emotions and energy allows. I hope that the action is dismissed as it should be. --  Zac  Δ talk! 08:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Astrology
I didn't revert you. Former IP did. As for discussing my version. I did. Did you discuss your change before making it? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot about the whole 'tag team' crap skeptics pull. irrational people suck.


 * But yeah, I did. check the talk page.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have checked the talk page, and no, you didn't discuss it. At all. And enough of the personal attacks already. You've lost a lot of credibility in my eyes over it already. It's dispicable and ungentlemanly. You are expected to comply with WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY when you edit here, as you've been told countless times. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Re, thank you. --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please refactor your comments
"I don't think Ronz is actually going to communicate his objections (he rarely does)" And in a discussion of WP:NPA no less! Please remove it. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a matter of evidence that you regularly revert without discussion, and you have publicly asserted that you do so because you cannot be bothered debating chages you think are stupid. It cannot be considered a personal attack if you proudly claim that you do it.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite the delusion you have going on. Please keep it to yourself. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In light of the current ArbCom Enforcement proposals you've made, how about demonstrating apply them at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks? --Ronz (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm confused by the term 'demonstrating'; I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting. I'm happy to do so, mind you, but I'm not sure how a 'demonstration' fits into a policy page.  Are you thinking a proposed rewording?  I have one I started there anyway which I need to get back to, so adding another iron to that fire is easy enough. -- Ludwigs 2  03:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You make it sound like you don't understand the very words you've written in your proposed resolution for appeal. --Ronz (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * lol - no. If that's what you have in mind then I'll get to proposing them for NPA fairly soon.  I was just trying to suss out what you were thinking, to see if we are on the same page.  You spoke obliquely (and you still do), which makes it a bit difficult.


 * Ronz, I'm doing my best to restart from a tabula rasa perspective, where I can give up on old conflicts. You can still be upset at me if you want, but I'm aiming to be collaborative.  You and I are most definitely still going to disagree on certain issues (I think that's unavoidable), but I'd like it if we could disagree without the drama.  With that in mind, if you have something you want me to do (or don't want me to do for that matter), I'm willing to listen.  I can't guarantee I'll agree, but if you spell it out in non-uncertain terms you'll get as fair a response as I can give.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Please refactor your comments" --Ronz (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * again, not sure what you're asking/reaching for. -- Ludwigs 2  05:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * P.s. that's a serious statement.  I honestly don't know what you're referring to.  if you'd like me to refactor something, give me a diff and a statement of what you want refactored; I'm happy to do it.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave you a diff, a quote, and asked you to remove it. How about I simply do it for you? --Ronz (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * oh, that. I'm sorry, I just got confused.  done.  satisfactory?  -- Ludwigs 2  05:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's a small step in the right direction. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)