User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 17

You are banned from astrology for six months, per an AE discussion
Please see the result of this AE thread. You are banned from the topic of astrology, broadly construed, for six months. If you believe that the sanction is not warranted you may appeal it to WP:Arbitration enforcement using the Arbitration enforcement appeal template or to Arbcom directly. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "The real problem here is that I am objectively right but socially maladroit. If I were not objectively right I'd have gotten in far more serious trouble a long time ago; if I were not socially maladroit I'd be an admin. It's a problem for me and for everyone, I realize, but all I can do is do what I think is right as best I can, and doubtless that will not satisfy everyone."


 * That's about how I see it anyway though we disagree on some things. Well sorry you got banned, I'm sure we'll meet again on some other article.  Best (:  Be— —Critical  16:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. I've appealed, and it's not a huge issue regardless.    -- Ludwigs 2  17:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment
I don't think we've ever worked on the same article, but I do recognize your name, and I've noticed that you always make thoughtful comments in whatever discussions I happen to be following. I thought you raised a great point about editors who go overboard and treat any non-destructive presentation of pseudoscience as advocacy. This, too, is a big problem on Wikipedia, one that AFAIK, hasn't really been addressed. But I think this comment is a bit too aggressive. I did not participate in the other discussions over POV and this was IIRC my first ever edit regarding the article. Don't lump me into the same category as other editors. You don't know who I am or what motivates me. (No, I'm not scared of astrology.) Now, I'm a big boy. I can take it. But this might put off other editors. Remember that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. (Not that I'm perfect either.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if that came off as too aggressive. I'll edit it if you like, but allow me to point out that I am honestly perplexed by these points of contention.  Adding scare-quotes to a term like respected has only one obvious purpose in that context - to assert that the writer actually believes that the opposite is true.  Published authors may take that liberty, but an encyclopedia shouldn't, not if it wants to maintain an impression of neutrality.


 * What bothers me about this is that fringe topic articles are full of this kind of thing, from both sides of the fence: editors making argumentative assertions and petty snubs as though they think they are going to win some battle on emotional rather than scientific grounds. It is impossible for me to judge motivations, obviously, but even assuming the best motivations possible, the point about whether astrologers can or should be considered 'respected' is trivial sensationalism.  As far as I'm concerned we should allow them to be respected in their field, and get back to describing what the field is so that people can evaluate it in an unbiased fashion.


 * What we have here is a dispute in the literature about the value of astrology. The dispute needs to be described, yes, but we shouldn't (as editors) engage in the dispute ourselves.  Yet that's precisely what's happening with moves like the one you suggested. Can you see what I mean? -- Ludwigs 2  01:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you in general, but disagree with you in this particular instance. "Respected" was being used in Wikipedia's voice.  I don't think the statement was true or verifiable.  If the text had said something like "astrologers respected by other astrologers" or "astrologers respected within astrology" or something like that, I would have been OK with it.  In any case, unless someone reverts BeCritical's edit, I consider the matter resolved.
 * But the real reason why I came to your talk page was expressed in my closing comments:
 * But this might put off other editors. Remember that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
 * I'm putting this is bold-face because, like I said, this was the main point I was trying to get at.
 * (And like I said, I am not perfect. Yesterday I told an editor they were wrong and I probably shouldn't have done that.  In fact, I'm feeling a bit guilty about that.  We're all human, though.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I've given up trying to catch flies on fringe pages. you watch what happens - there are already a number of editors who are simply going to plug up the page by refusing to discuss anything and refusing to allow any editing to get done, no matter how silly their reverts are.  It doesn't matter how nice or how mean I am to them, they are going to behave the same way, like spoiled, angry babies.  sooner or later they are going to try to get me blocked, and may very well succeed (because I don't really care enough anymore to dodge).  I am tired of having to kiss science-troll ass to get anything done on project.  I'm sorry if part of that sour attitude bounces off onto you, but that's really as far as I care to go on it.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Switching gears a bit...is it possible that you can write up your thoughts in a user essay? I agree with you that editors going overboard in debunking fringe theories is a real problem on Wikipedia.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're making some excellent points on the article talk page. Are you considering my request to write down your thoughts on a user essay?  If not, maybe I'll do it.  But I'd rather be lazy and let you do the work. :)  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I seem to have missed these posts in cross-chatter. That's an interesting thought.  Maybe I'll start that this weekend.  when I do, I'll drop a link in your talk and we can collab on it.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. I have your talkpage on my watchlist.  It's not necessary to drop a note on my talk page if you don't want to.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI
This. 68.54.4.162 (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:War of the Pacific
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:War of the Pacific. 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) 08:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. I have posted the updated text in discussion. The point here is to explain Grau's notability. We have sources which prove that Grau's notability helped rally Peruvian morale in the early stages in the conflict (and there are no sources which contradict this position). Hence, we then need to explain why Grau received this notability, and this is where the one sentence which explains the reason for the term "knight of the seas" comes into play. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 03:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Zoosexuality
What about this as a sexual orientation? You want to support its inclusion at the Sexual orientation article? Homosexuals and zoosexuals, in the same boat. You can come in and comment on the talk page. 120.203.215.11 (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No I do not support its inclusion as a sexual orientation. There was an editor trying to get it included on the sexual orientation template, and I told him he should go and get it included on the main sexual orientation page first and stop arguing about it on the template page.  If there's actually some danger of it making its way onto the main page, I'll weigh in against that; I just figured the people at the main page were better equipped to handle this kind of thing.  do you need me to say something to that effect?  -- Ludwigs 2  01:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh gosh, here's another one. This guy has posted the same identical canvassing request to countless user talk pages. All through open proxy IP addresses. We block 'em as we find 'em. The message above was unlikely in response to anything you did on Wikipedia. It seems to be targeting random user talk pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologise
That was rude of me. The problem is, I've seen you around, and don't like your approach on alternative medicine. Not your orientation, your approach. I had a similar problem a year or so ago with some vehement anti-acupuncture editors. It's my opinion that you understand the principle that health-related articles must be based on only the highest classes of evidence, but believe acupuncture is some kind of exception to that standard. Please prove me wrong by your future behaviour. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's not what I think. I believe that articles should be neutral and unbiased, without exception, and that the rubric that medicine articles must be 'based on the highest classes of evidence' often gets in the way of neutrality.  I understand the reasoning behind the rubric - fears about the promotion of poor techniques - but I disagree that fair treatment of the subject is equivalent to promotion.


 * Be aware that this is the kind of argument I'll be making: I will be suggesting that an excessive focus on modern medical practice is damaging to article because it precludes an accurate understanding of acupuncture. I will not be suggesting that there be no reference to modern medicine, just that an appropriate balance be struck.  I'd appreciate it if you worked with me to find that balance.  -- Ludwigs 2  13:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no problem including the acupuncturist's beliefs in the article, provided the article makes it plain the theory is contradicted by science, and the entire effect of acupuncture is placebo, with the possible exception of its effect on certain negative bodily feelings. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL - uh, ok. I suspect you're going to have to bend a little farther than that, though.    Keep in mind that the purpose of this article is not for us to assess acupuncture on our own, but rather to describe differing viewpoints on acupuncture, of which modern medicine is only one.  per wp:NPOV, "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them."  There is a dispute in the general public about the use of acupuncture, and it is not our job to assert that any one perspective is correct or incorrect, regardless of how convinced we are of the case.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm half-way through your argument on Mohammed/Images and have to say you are rising rapidly in my esteem. Thank you for raising this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're in agreement on the presentation of acupuncture, if you've got no problem with a clear presentation of the evidence and its strength. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for backstopping me
at Men's rights‎, Ludwig. (Which, I associate with Ludwig Drums rather than Mad King Ludwig or The BIG L). I find that article to be a double insult, (1) to wikipedia and (2) to me as a man. You are showing me how these feelings can be properly dealt with, rather than, feeding the animals, which is my reflex position. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

NPA request
Re Talk:Muhammad/images -- It's kind of odd to see a request for admin action on a talk page where a few admins are already WP:INVOLVED in the discussion and can't take any administrative action, but for what it's worth, I left a note for Tarc about WP:NPA. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it best to go easy. It seems unlikely to me that the discussion will come to a reasonable understanding, but there's no hope of that at all if we allow tempers to fly off the handle.  However, since you encouraged him to be gruff on his talk page, I responded to him in a gruff fashion (just so that he knows I can); he and I will find our own level of discourse.


 * I'm now considering which form of dispute resolution is most appropriate for the page, and I asked on the talk page. time to move away from the stalemate and get some better perspectives.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's like this. Imagine if you give a child a wonderful toy that makes a great big noise. Now, invite their friends (also children) over to play with this toy. Make sure there is enough to go around. Now, give them all guns.
 * Imagine now an adult walking into the room and trying to take their toy away. Under normal circumstances, the children make an allmighty fuss and there's lots of crying and temper tantrums, possibly some hitting, but the adult can take the toy away and eventually the children calm down and go and play with something else. Except this time, they have guns. Guess what happens?
 * In an adult environment, all images of a contraversial nature would be hidden and users could make an easy choice to opt-in to see them. No child would be in any position to make the utterly, utterly childish cry of "OMG CENSORSHIP" about a perfectly reasonable editorial choice that happens every day in normal, adult media enterprises... or rather, they'd make their "OMG CENSORSHIP" tantrum, but the adults would ignore them.
 * At some stage, most of the people you're conversing with are going to grow up and think "oh my, how could I have been so childish". I know I did about any number of things and I imagine you did too. The others will be wearing tin-foil hats well into their sixties and voting green or national-socialist, depending on their general political leanings. But right now, you're just trying to take a shiny toy away from a bunch of kids with guns.  You're going to get shot.101.118.48.0 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't encourage him to be gruff. He was already being gruff. I simply acknowledged that's the way he is, after some years of crossing paths with him.
 * Re the IP's comment: An opt-in choice with the default as opt-out is an interesting proposition that bears some consideration. I can see the can of worms that might open up though, because it would require someone to decide what images would be hidden, and then we're back where we started. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps I misread his talk. I saw this: "By the way, I thought your response to Ludwigs2 was well done." but the timestamp didn't register properly.  If you'd like me to retract my comment at wikiquette, I'm happy to, just let me know.


 * to and re the IP: the opt-in thing is an interesting idea, but it won't solve the problem. the real problem is getting people to use adult moral reasoning on project.  Most of us do, but on the internet there are no social controls so people who decide not to can go hog-wild.


 * as to getting shot… this is the condition of my existence on wikipedia.  I'm smart, I'm tenacious, I generally have a clear vision on things, and I tend to get involved on articles where people don't much like my being smart, tenacious and clear.  do you have any idea how many people on project would like to see me indef-blocked if they could only figure out proper grounds for it?  I cannot cross my fingers and spit without three random editors writing impassioned pleas to admins to impose sanctions on me.  It sucks to be me.


 * On the other hand, it's an online encyclopedia - I'm supposed to take that kind of drama seriously? -- Ludwigs 2  05:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Applause
For this helpful edit summary. KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been an hour
Please complete this promptly or it will be removed. You might want to copy the template to your userspace and complete it there first then copy it over. Risker (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've never done this before, and did not realize there was an issue taking my time with it. I was just following the instructions.  if you prefer to delete it that's alright with me; I suspect I can just save the version I'm working on and it will recreate it.  Just let me know.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just read over the instructions again, and I don't think we've made it clear the importance of ensuring the full initiating statements of the request should be completed very promptly, so I will work on improving those instructions. However, if you are not in a position to complete the basics within the next hour or so, I will remove it without prejudice to filing when you have all the information pulled together. Does this seem reasonable?  Risker (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me - as I said, if you would like to remove it now that would be ok. if I may, I suggest you change the instructions so that the first step is not to paste in a  template and then reedit it in the second step.  that was where I went wrong.  probably means you'll have to change how the template is set up, but…


 * Sorry for any confusion or inconvenience. -- Ludwigs 2  04:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Tarc and WP:OWN
I was tempted to respond on the talk page, but then I would have failed to follow my own advice. But I did want to ask, you do understand that stating an opinion that "the images will never be removed" is not the same thing as taking OWNership of the page, right? Tarc isn't telling you he will ensure the images are never removed. He is telling you that he doesn't think there is any chance consensus will support your view. Resolute 22:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Resolute, I can't judge Tarc's intention. when he says "The images will not be removed" in that normally gruff voice, it sounds like a declaration of war, not like a personal opinion.  All of you are going to have to get used to the idea that consensus can change, and may change, and that might end up with the pictures being removed - the more adamant you all are that it will never happen, the more you present yourselves as violating wp:OWN.


 * Frankly, I'm tired of being treated by you people like I'm unreasonable. I've been doing my best to be very calm, and a have a clear, reasonable discussion, and I have gotten nothing but a load of hostile bull from the lot of you.  I may think you're wrong, but I can recognize the value in your perspective; you damned well ought to get around to treating me the same way. -- Ludwigs 2  23:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * When you promise to keep bringing the topic up over and over and over again until you get your way, then yes, people will view you as being unreasonable. We have lots of cute little wiki-terms for that, most of which have been ascribed to you already, so I won't bother again.  And just because I don't agree with your perspective does not mean I don't value it.  But consider this: The rights of the individual can exist only so far as they don't interfere with the rights of another.  You are asserting that a Muslim's religious "right" to not see images of their prophet should override my "right" to view all aspects of an article on a historical individual. That includes such images.  Make no mistake on this, removing the images on religious grounds is censorship.  Consequently, you are seeking to have your "right" squash mine.  That is why you are seeing such a strongly negative reaction from so many people.  And that is why people like Tarc are so firm in their opinion that you will not succeed.


 * I am under no obligation to observe Muslim religious traditions any more than I am obligated to observe Christian, Jewish or pagan. Your argument is that I should have no choice but to follow Muslim belief in this case. That is something that I do not find acceptable.  For those that prefer not to see such images, we have provided a means to hide the images for them.  My right to free and open information and your right not to see images you don't like are thus both protected. It is a good system, but requires that you accept my right is no less important than your own. Resolute 23:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Now, see, that is a really offensive thing to say. I did not promise to "keep bringing the topic up over and over and over again until you get your way", I promised to keep patiently working on this until we had some decision that was not the product of page ownership.  I'm also not interested in forcing you to observe Muslim tradition; I'm simply suggesting that you stop trying to destroy muslim tradition for no damned reason.  but you seem unable to understand that distinction.


 * If you want to win this battle by calling me names I can't stop you from trying. but don't ask me to respect you for it.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I cannot stop someone from seeing offence where none was intended. But I do ask, why is the system of allowing those who do not wish to see the images only for themselves not sufficient to you?  It allows a Muslim to observe their own tradition without forcing other to do the same.  Where is the flaw in this system? Resolute 23:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The flaw in the system, Resolute, is what I have been saying all along: we are causing offense to an entire religion because of images that ultimately add almost no value to the article. I could see causing offense to an entire religion with reasonable cause; that's an unfortunate necessity of writing an encyclopedia.  I simply cannot stomach doing it over trivia.  it's unethical and unconscionable.  I don't know how anyone can argue that we are free to offend people because the encyclopedia doesn't care about offending people; it's like suggesting that we free to beat anyone we like because the US constitution doesn't guarantee freedom from pain - ridiculous on the face of it. -- Ludwigs 2  00:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that was an impressively absurd comparison given United States law criminalizes assault. A great many people are deeply offended by attempts at censorship on that article.  As such, those same people become offended by your own actions. Your viewpoint that nobody should be offended is quaint, and even commendable, but completely unrealistic.  But, we come back to my above point: you seek to force one group to be subservient to another.  I can't imagine why you are surprised that people view you as unreasonable.  At any rate, we're likely to argue around the same circles on this point, so I will take my leave.  I hope you enjoy the remainder of your evening. Regards, Resolute 00:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolute, you can only make the assertions you make here by viewing everything through a very peculiar lens. removing unnecessary-and-offensive pictures is not censorship, it's common courtesy.  NOTCENSORED does not mean we say to people "We're going to do what you dislike not because we have to, but just because we can"; If you think that's what it mean, you have no conscience.  that is deeply problematic behavior.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice
Nice job framing the problem for ArbCom. I doubt they'll take it the way you've put it, but it's great that it's said anyway. Be— —Critical 03:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was trying to be as fair and complete as possible; not sure how well I succeeded, but I'm glad you approve. As to whether they will take it - out of my control.  Anyone who studies history, however, learns that most everything social has to fail a half dozen times before it catches on.  if they reject it, it will most assuredly come up to their attention again, and again after that.  it's just a matter of time.


 * If you can think of anything persuasive to add in either direction, throw in your two cents at the request. -- Ludwigs 2  03:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There are enough editor behavior issues to get it accepted, but you'd be toast :P Be— —Critical  03:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * B.C., be realistic. I am toast sooner or later, regardless.  As well to do what I think is right as not.    -- Ludwigs 2  03:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Awww, that's sad. Be— —Critical  05:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Ludwigs2: You don't have to be. Please keep the following in mind.  And if you want to know why you can't win some arguments on the internet, read this.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * lol - I think xkcd is great.   But don't worry; knowing that I'm eventually going to get kicked off the project (and knowing why that's going to happen, if not when) is freeing.  It allows me to stand up for things I believe in without fear of punishment.  Of course, that in itself is one of the things people really can't stand about me…  hmm.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Ludwigs2: This is completely unrelated, but have you seen the xkcd about "In popular culture" sections? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC
Hi Ludwigs2, I'm happy to help in drafting something like this. -- J N  466  15:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Goodnight
It's bedtime here. I'd like to work up something on the talk page about images of M over the next few days. Nothing huge, just stuff everyone agrees to be relevant to this article. I removed a comment to me from you because I thought it was off topic and a bit inflammatory, and I'd rather keep things cool there. Feel free to restore if you disagree. Catch you later. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * nah,that's alright. I should have put it on your talk page.  I just wanted to make sure you were aware that s/he is prone to speaking in sententious absolutes.  'nough said.    -- Ludwigs 2  14:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I know. We've met before. But I appreciate the sentiment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * On this. Please try to refrain from discussing the motives and character of other editors. I know it's difficult in an environment where others are doing it but it makes you and your position look bad. If you ignore obvious foolishness and ad hominem, just leave it dangling, it shows up the perpetrator. When you join in these behaviours the very best outcome is both of you look pathetic. Sorry to lecture but it has to be said. RL intrudes for the next few days. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. -- Ludwigs 2  02:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Your request for arbitration
Your request for arbitration has been declined. The voting arbitrators considered that the request was a content issue and could be handled by the community. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. 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) 09:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Fringe Theories
I agree with everything you wrote, and appreciate it.

in my own comment however, I meant to be clear that there was no call to bring "truth" into this, I hope I was clear.

I was also trying to forward some concrete suggestions. I would very much like to know whether you think they are or are not constructive. Thanks,Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, you make good points, and I agree with what you say, but I've personally come to think that that the wp:RS approach is a mistake. What inevitably happens is that RS discussions lead us back to a discussion of 'truth' (usually by asserting that some sources are mainstream and therefore true while others are false) and that falls right back into ontological warfare.  It would be better than what we have, mind you, and if it comes down to compromise I'll be backing your approach.  But rather than finish that thought here, let me do it in response to QfK over at V.

File:Question mark - inverted, color.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Question mark - inverted, color.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. N o f o rmation Talk  01:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI
When Robert posted in that thread he doubled the size of ANI, I just fixed it but I had to delete some of the comments in the thread, do you mind going back to the last diff and pulling out what you wrote and reposting it? There are a number of comments that got cut as some people were posting to the first version of the thread in the middle of the page while others posted at the second at the bottom. N o f o rmation Talk  02:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ugh, a mess. ok, I'll see what I can do.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed
In a recent exchange on the Reiki talk page, you called me "grasshopper." Leaving aside that I may be older than you, that I've been around WP longer than you, and so on... I do value beginner's mind. That thread we engaged in is active once more. As I said I would, I contributed what I thought was a balanced statement about the current state of research on Reiki. I stayed very close to the sources and I balanced the fact that they haven't verified the mechanism by which it works with the fact that some very notable organizations temper their statements about "no verifiable data" with the qualifier "yet." I put my version up on the talk page. When, after several days no one disputed it, I added it to the article. Yobol reverted me and seems to be trying to insert his POV. OK, so assuming I'm the grasshopper. What does one do? Sunray (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the grasshopper thing, that was a joke.   as to the specific problem, I suggest you revert any changes Yobol made to the version before your post, then open a new thread noting that you've restored the passage to its original version and for some discussion.  if no discussion happens, reassert your version after 24 hours.


 * I've been busy with other things, but I'll take a look in on the page this evening. -- Ludwigs 2  16:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had done approximately what you suggest. It is somewhat more complicated than that. I am in "discussion" with Yobol and Ronz on the talk page here. Sage comments would be most welcome. Sunray (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I get the "grasshopper" reference (took me awhile). Yes, humorous, but in in a rueful sense. Sunray (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment
I love the wisdom of the Serenity Prayer. I'm an atheist so I'll rephrase it in a secular manner:

May I have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.

Based on the comments at ANI, you've arguing for the removal of those images for 3 weeks. Assuming that's true, how many people at the beginning of the discussion have since changed their minds? Do you think that continuing is likely to change anyone's mind? Are you anywhere close to your arguments becoming consensus?

On a perhaps somewhat related note, I read the following article a couple weeks ago and found it fascinating:

The Backfire Effect

You might enjoy it as well. I'm not sure it really applies to this particular situation, but it's a great read and I highly recommend it. Cheers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Quest: you could as easily make this same comment to the people on the other side of the dispute. Since I have a very good argument, and they don't, I'm not sure why you think I should be the one to leave the discussion.


 * I have no problem sitting on that page rehashing issues until we make progress, one way or another. I really don't care about about any backfire, and I don't think it's wise to give into foolishness, and I'm sure you can find better quotes than the AA slogan.   -- Ludwigs 2  17:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm telling you because I don't want to see you banned or blocked again, and that's exactly what's going to happen if you continue on this path. Believe it or not, I'm trying to help you.  But that's fine, I said what I wanted to say and I won't belabor the point.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that. Honestly, I do.  unfortunately, I have never been the type to back away from correct behavior out of fear.  It's just not in my nature.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My point isn't about fear; it's about practicality. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If your point is about practicality, make an argument about practicality; don't invoke threats of punishment. Unless you're suggesting that irrational punishment is such a commonplace on wikipedia that avoiding it is merely a matter of practicality?  that would be a sad state of affairs… -- Ludwigs 2  18:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Dude, I didn't threaten you. I did make an argument about practicticality in my first post.  You responded by saying I could have just as easily posted my first comment to the other editors.  So I explained why I posted it to yours: I don't want to see you blocked or banned.  If I wanted to see you blacked or banned, I'd be at ANI supporting the topic ban proposal.  But am I?  No.  I thought that maybe I could help.  Obviously, I haven't.  I'm sorry for having bothered you.  Feel free to delete this thread from your talk page.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Quest - we're talking past each other. I didn't suggest you threatened me, but the argument "Don't do what you think is right because you might get in trouble for it" doesn't mean anything to me.  literally: I view it as a nonsensical non-sequitor.  I'm glad you don't want to see me blocked or banned (I have enough editors flying that banner for a lifetime).  I appreciate and understand your concern, and trust me I will do what I can to try to avoid getting blocked or banned.  But there are principles which I will not sacrifice, otherwise I will no longer consider it worthwhile to work on the encyclopedia.  I hope you understand.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Who care if anybody is offended by images of Muhammad. Catholics, Orthodox, Buddists, Islamists, Protestants, Lutherans, Athiests, Agnostics, Anglicans, Communists, etc etc. Honestly, big deal -- boo hoo. The images are there -- Get over it. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW
FWIW and if you haven't already read it, I rescinded my support of your topic ban. As I said in the thread, I think you're a pretty awesome editor (especially in your handling of Men's rights, but that's just the most recent) and don't want to see you banned from the article. I'm asking you to AGF on my part - as well as the other editors on the page - that we have read and considered your points but that we simply do not agree with you. I know you don't agree with us - and that's ok. Clearly this is something that needs to be decided policy wise, my only argument is that until policy changes, we follow it the way that it's written. Would you please reconsider your attitude at the page as well as your argument regarding religious offense? If you do and humbly agree on AN/I, I think that most of those supports would be willing to reconsider as well. I think progress can be made towards a compromise but the all or nothing approach will not work. Thanks for reading. N o f o rmation Talk  23:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Something I forgot to bring up. Would you be willing to move this discussion to WP:NOTCENSORED for the sake of gaining a more community wide consensus there regarding the way the policy is written?   N o f o rmation  Talk  23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've never had the 'all or nothing approach' (I seemed to have been thoroughly slimed in that regard; par for the course). But yes, I'll open up a policy RfC on it over there; we'll see what happens.  I do agree with you that the entire discussion at Muhammad has reached the wp:DEADHORSE stage; we'll just have to disagree about who's doing the whipping.    -- Ludwigs 2  23:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I mischaracterized your approach. I'm glad that you're willing to open an RfC over there, please let me know if you'd like any help or input.  You might want to mention this on AN/I and perhaps we can put the talk page mess behind all of us.  Thanks.  N o f o rmation  Talk  23:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I'll do that now. -- Ludwigs 2  00:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mexico City
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mexico City. 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) 10:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Seen this?
Re your comment to Wikkid at Jimbo's, have you seen WP:Offensive material. It doesn't cover religious offensiveness,,, yet. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"making up cheap lies"
Stop that. You've made it clear that you consider objections based on religious beliefs to be something that should be considered during deciding whether an image should be placed in an article. I'm not "making up cheap lies" when I point that out. It may not be the only motivating factor you have, but it is certainly something you desire and something that I consider to be fundamentally wrong.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You misrepresent my intentions and motivations (which you shouldn't be talking about in the first place under wp:NPA). You don't know what I desire.  You refuse to give me any credit that I might be making a marginally reasonable point.  how would you like me to frame all that?


 * They are cheap lies. maybe you believe them (in which case they are cheap lies you are telling yourself, rather than cheap lies you're telling to others), but from my perspective there's not a whole lot of difference.  keep your grubby little fingers out of my psyche, and deal with what I am saying to you as I say it (not filtered through the twists and turns of your own perspective).  -- Ludwigs 2  23:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I misrepresented nothing at all. Or do you care to join me in the statement that Islamic beliefs are irrelevant to the decision making process? You can't have it both ways: either religious beliefs are relevant to Wikipedia's editorial policies, or they aren't. I maintain they aren't, but you clearly maintain they are: if you didn't believe that, you wouldn't even consider the images of Mohammed to be controversial.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've answered you on the talk page. you are casting my perspective as religious when the arguments I make have to do with NPOV and common sense.  As I have said endless amounts of times I don't think we should offend anyone without a good encyclopedic reason.  I've said that to you 'specifically' at least a handful of times, and the fact that you still haven't gotten it is why I say that you are lying.  Maybe you have a better explanation about how I can say 'X' to you repeatedly and see that you still say I said 'Y'?  If so, I'd like to hear it, because I don't like to think that you are lying intentionally.  but you are surely not telling the truth.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that you, yourself, were religious. I said that you wanted to "incorporate religious sensitivity in Wikipedia editorial policy". What are you doing when you worry about offending Muslims if you aren't "incorporat[ing] religious sensitivity" in your decision making process? If you want the rest of us to also worry about offending Muslims, what are doing besides attempting to "incorporate religious sensitivity in Wikipedia editorial policy"? As I've said, once I've determined that someone's objection is religious in nature, I ignore it and encourage everyone else to do the same. The only part where I even come close to agreeing with you is that I don't think pages meant to attack religious beliefs have a place on Wikipedia, either, but that issue hasn't even come up.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And AGAIN you are interpreting what I said in religious terms. YOU are the one with religious issue here, not me.


 * I want you to stop for one second: forget that you've ever heard the term religion, ever been exposed to a religious concept, ever experienced a dispute on a religion article on Wikipedia. Forget all that, and consider this statement: "We should not offend anyone on wikipedia without a good encyclopedic reason for doing so."  You tell me what's wrong with that statement from the perspective of Wikipedia's purpose, without referring to religion or any other specific context.  If you cannot oppose it as a general rule, but need to invoke religion to make your opposition to it make sense, then that ought to clue you in that you are not as secularly neutral as you might believe.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your statement. People are irrational in many ways, and attempting not to offend anyone is both unachievable and undesirable.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not ask for your 'opinion' Kww; I asked you to tell me what's wrong with the statement from the perspective of Wikipedia. If you cannot justify your position in terms of the principles and goals of the project, then it's entirely possible that you are the one who acting out of an irrational belief.  -- Ludwigs 2  14:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's wrong for an encyclopedia to incorporate irrational perspectives in its editorial process. Don't misunderstand me: when I say the beliefs of three tribesmen and those of a billion Muslims and those of billions of Buddhists, Christians, and Jews are the equivalent, I'm not elevating the perspective of the three tribesmen. None of these perspectives are worth considering in the editorial policies of an encyclopedia, and its harmful to an encyclopedia to worry about offending any of them. Any policy change which would make offending people on this kind of basis subject images to additional scrutiny (such as "is it incidental or not?") is harmful.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kww: All of these perspectives are perfectly worthy of being used in the editorial process - NPOV is absolutely, unquestionably, unambiguously clear on that point. They may not end up being used in articles, but refusing to allow them to be considered is a violation of core policy.  This is what I have been saying all along: we have to take such perspectives into consideration and weigh their value against other interests.


 * Note what you are doing: you are starting with well-defined religious/cultural proscription, translating that into a 'personal sensibility', translating that into an 'irrational perspective', and then trying to dismiss it as unworthy of consideration. I submit that your logic is irrational here: how can a cultural proscription be equated with a personal desire? why should personal desires be considered always irrational?  This is not good reasoning.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I never talked about sensibilities, Ludwigs2. Check your wording. Nits aside, religion is irrational, virtually by definition, and nothing about NPOV requires us to consider irrational perspectives.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kww: "religion is irrational, virtually by definition…" You realize that I'm going to diff this phrase as an example of your extreme intolerance every time you accuse me of supporting a religious perspective, right? The vast majority of people in the world are religious in one way or another.  Your personal belief that religion is irrational is not an established fact or a scientific principle, it is merely a prejudice, and prejudicial viewpoints are not presented on wikipedia without balance, per NPOV.


 * Absolute gob-smacking chutzpah... -- Ludwigs 2  16:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's actually more of an epistemological observation. Religion, by definition, is based on faith, which is epistemologically distinct from reason. If it's disparaging to say so then you'd probably find an intro to epistemology class pretty offensive.   N o f o rmation  Talk  19:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nofo, I've taught philosophy on the university level; careful with your assumptions. You are mixing modalities - belief is an ontological claim, reason an epistemological tool - so the phrase 'faith is epistemologically distinct from reason' is difficult to deconstruct into meaningful concepts without veering into tautology.  If you want a discussion on the fussy details of the metaphysics of knowledge I'm happy to oblige, but don't try to wow me with sophomoric truisms.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a statement of fact, Ludwigs2, and not a sign of "intolerance" at all. Religious beliefs aren't rational: if they were, we would be evaluating them as theories, hypotheses, or observations. No amount of rational discourse can persuade a person to hold or abandon a religious belief. They just aren't in the realm of rational thought.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey
Will you please just shut up. In case you haven't noticed, a good number of editors have now chimed in in support of the same position you are espousing. Your incessant whining on and on and on about the motives, intentions, character and god knows what of those who hold a different view is making so mush noise that it's impossible, or at least very unpleasant trying, to make any progress or find common ground.

Learn to control yourself. You're not the only one here trying to improve the project. All of those editors you delight in belittling and baiting are here for the same purpose. None of those I know who oppose your position are doing it for any other reason than that they love this project and they are not motivated by a hatred of Islam.

Grow up. Ignore the baiting. Don't engage in it. If you keep this discussion of other editors going I swear I'll swing round and lead the pitchfork charge. I'm sick of it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * that's the bowdlerized version? -- Ludwigs 2  16:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being so harsh. I'm trying to get you to reflect on your behaviour. I like you, and I admire your wit, intelligence and values. I've seen you mention a couple of times that you have something to learn about dealing with people. Well, you're in the right place. One of the benefits here is we get to look back over our behaviour and learn from it. And others are pretty frank about that too. My most immediate observation with regard to you, if I may, is that you're constantly reflecting on others' motives and character out loud.
 * This gets you into all sorts of interpersonal trouble. It's been pointed out to you but you continue to do it. I don't know what that's about. If you could find a way to resist that, you'll flourish here. Again, I'm genuinely sorry for what I said. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Anthony: I was joking - you can make whatever comments you like to me, so long as they are fair-minded and justified. I get annoyed when editors make up lies about me for political advantage (which is all too frequently the case on project), but I'm not particularly thin-skinned and am generally far more self-reflective and responsive than most people you're likely to meet when it comes sensible critiques.


 * In fact, you're right: I do sometimes make comments about other's character and motivations. Sometimes that's because I've gotten myself in a pissy mood (which is bad, and shouldn't happen), but as often as not it's because they've stopped behaving in a rational manner and started behaving in an emotional one,and I need to clue them into that fact or the page will not progress.  Take Muhammad for an example; I know (for a fact) that what's happened on that page is that several editors have established a certain ego-identification with their role on the page (as guardians of a particular policy-aspect), and this role has become as or more important to them then the actual article itself.  They can't readily give up their position, no matter that it's nonsensical, because the idea of backing down threatens their very identity and produces a truckload of cognitive dissonance.


 * That puts me (and the project) in an unpleasant position. my choices seem to be:
 * Walking away so that I don't confront their ego-edentifications (which means that the nonsensical material will mar the page indefinitely, since no one else is likely to have the technical understanding or wherewithal to confront such identifications meaningfully)
 * Doing my best to explain the problematic identifications and point out the logical inconsistencies of their position in the hopes they will see their way through it (which inevitably produces the kind of shit-storm that you see here - confronting ego-identifications is risky under the best conditions, and Wikipedia is not even close to being good conditions for doing it).
 * I'm about 50/50 on which I choose to do - some pages aren't worth the effort; some are - and I really don't see a third approach. I'm willing to take the hits for doing it in the interests of the project, so that's not a problem, but if you have a better approach to suggest I'm all ears.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "but as often as not it's because they've stopped behaving in a rational manner and started behaving in an emotional one, and I need to clue them into that fact or the page will not progress." That step, if I may, deserves serious re-assessment. Implying bigotry is the underlying motivation of your interlocutor is, usually, exceedingly counterproductive. Saying they're behaving irrationally and emotionally is, almost always, a mistake. Explaining the problematic identifications and pointing out the logical inconsistencies of their position is sometimes useful. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not like I haven't hunted around for better approaches to this problem. In the real-world I have a lot of diplomatic ways to deal with these kinds of issues - it's easy to focus people on the operative point and keep them from flying off into hysterics when you're talking face-to-face - but few of them work at all on the internet.  The problem I find myself faced with is that I have to get people to see that they are working off of problematic preconceptions and questionable logic, and there is no way to do that on wikipedia without leaving an opening for someone to claim I'm being uncivil.  It doesn't matter how kind and delicate I am with it (and I'll note that I know I am unfortunately not always kind and delicate, just so you don't think I'm deluded); if someone wants to make a federal case out of it they can toss up every time I tell them they are misunderstanding or using poor logic as a personal attack.  And on the kind of pages where I find myself doing this, there are always editors who want to make a federal case out of it.


 * What happens on wikipedia on contentious pages is that editors ratchet up the emotional tension specifically to preclude rational conversation. For instance, most of the pro-image arguments on Muhammad only work because the people that use them can rely on a level of hysteria over religious censorship to give them context, and in fact most of the arguments on the page have not been about the images themselves but rather efforts to amplify that level of hysteria by accusing people of improper behavior.  Note, for instance, how people like Tarc and Robert consistently suggest that others should have 'thick skins' to what they say, but react instantly and vocally to anything they can manage to perceive as a criticism of them.  Wikipedia has become (at least on contentious pages) an ad hominem encyclopedia, where emotionality becomes a tool dedicated to defeating reason, and where most of the efforts of participants are geared towards setting themselves up as the ostensible victims.  So again, I'm back to the position where any effort at discussing bad reasoning will end up with people shouting about me in ANI.


 * The only thing I can really do here is to face down all the irrational hostility I run into on a page like this with a calm, measured attitude. but in an environment where every phrase I utter is diffed and weighed for its worst possible interpretation, that requires a super-human effort that I'm not always capable of.  Until the system on Wikipedia grows up some, I'm afraid that my choices are limited.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Eloquence
Thanks for the eloquence of this explanation. Truth, science, accuracy, NPOV as a few examples, in my opinion often became cliche driven words on Wikipedia in which, over time, meaning has been lost. You've removed the accepted superficial layer of non meaning and explained. What a relief!(olive (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC))


 * I'm not sure how much good it will do, but there's a value in putting it out there on the merits. -- Ludwigs 2  21:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really enjoying your and Jayen's clear and, yes, eloquent exposition. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayen's a smart cookie, and I'm not bad at this kind of thing when I can manage not to be a hormonal idiot. Do you think I can get a prescription for medical MJ for that condition?    -- Ludwigs 2  14:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I stumbled across him holding forth in German the other day at de.WP. As for MJ, I doubt it helps with those hormones and I know for a fact it turns me into a florid, insightful, poetic, slightly delusional bigger idiot. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yugoslavs in Croatia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yugoslavs in Croatia. 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) 10:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Solidarity
I wrote a couple of short lines in your support and in support of your RfC, and got this link-dump on my talk page for my efforts. So kudos to you for not letting all this get to you as much as it might do. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about that. Thanks for the note of support.  some people, I swear…  -- Ludwigs 2  03:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Continuation War
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Continuation War. 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) 11:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Veterans Day
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Veterans Day. 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) 12:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)