→Request: Reply |
→Request: Jess - I don't need you to warn me for anything. next time you do, I'm taking you to wikiquette |
||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
: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. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 08:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
: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. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 08:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
::I'll also note that reverting another users' legitimate inquiries, as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=next&oldid=427512794 here], is wildly inappropriate. Consider this a second warning. Please see [[Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments|the talk page guidelines]] for specific info on this. I'm not sure what's going on with you recently, but this sort of behavior is blatantly disruptive. I would appreciate it if it would stop, and we could move on with constructive work. Thanks. — [[User:Mann_jess|<b>Jess</b>]]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· [[Special:Contributions/Mann_jess|Δ]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|♥]]</span> 10:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:50, 5 May 2011
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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. --Ludwigs2 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)
- Thanks, no need to rush. Alinor (talk) 06:34, 13 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)
- Done sorry, thought I'd done that already--Ludwigs2 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. Nightw 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. --Ludwigs2 17:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- 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:
Measuring rod and Megalithic Yard
Do you see OR problems in these? Dougweller (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- well, an OR tendency is there. I mean, I personally have no doubts that ancient peoples had standardized units they worked from - one can't engage in massive engineering projects without rough standardization of some sort, and ancient peoples were not particularly stupid. I don't like the implications that get thrown out about some uber-standardization (from Egypt to Britain, for heaven's sake) because that starts to sound awfully fringish. Again, doubtless there was foreign contact, but more likely there was just functional convergence (e.g., the reason why doors are roughly the same size from Asia to Africa to Europe to the New World is that doors are sized to the needs of people and people are all roughly the same size). I don't want to go whole hog and commit myself to saying they are ORing. It's borderline; it could certainly use some rephrasing and pruning, and some careful reading of sources. --Ludwigs2 06:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm not sure about the maths either, we can say 2+2 = 4 but I'm not sure about more complicated stuff, and we can't use it to draw conclusions. The MY article seems to assert that it is accepted but I don't think that's the case. Certainly one source I looked at didn't say that at all, Ivimy is not a reliable source, and I'd like to see what Ruggles actually said as everything I've read by him has been skeptical. And Measuring rod has had, and may still have, a lot of stuff not about measuring rods but about measurements. Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) Compare that article to Alexander Thom. Units of measurement change under pressures analogous to those that make languages change, so it's plausible that at some point far enough in the past huge areas used basically the same unit of length. But it makes no sense at all to suggest that an Egyptian unit of length was 1/√5 of an ancient unit. There is no particularly plausible reason for this suggestion, so we can't treat it as a hypothesis that can be tested by checking the numbers. In this area you just can't do it the other way round because starting with two random numbers of the same order of magnitude you will always come up with simple numerical connections of this kind that approximate one in terms of the other pretty well. And the claim that this unit was 8.2966 m, i.e. that it can be determined up to 0.1%, is obvious fringe. Even granting that the prehistoric cultures may have had metrologists who could preserve such a level of precision over many centuries and thousands of kilometres, it's very unlikely that construction workers would have worked so precisely – or, for that matter, whoever measured the prehistoric sites. Hans Adler 07:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- well, hmph. maybe we should consider merging the megolithic yard article in as a section on the Thom article - it seems to be solely his semi- or pseudo- scientific idea picked up and extrapolated on by some real fringe authors. Cover the MegYa material in Thom's bio, and cover any notable fringe theories that draw on it in separate articles where they can clearly be contained as fringe. That way we don't sully Thom (who apparently was not happy about his theory being picked up by the fringe crowd). Of course, if you guys think this is the plan we should bring it up at the talk page.
- Also, did you notice that there's some monkey business going on here? I'm not sure who did what or why, but we have Megalithic Yard and Megalithic yard which point to very different places. we ought to rationalize that, but where there's that there's probably other page-name monkeyshines going on (it's like potato chips - no one stops at one). Unfortunately, this topic is kind of out of my bailiwick: I have no idea what articles might be related to this one (though I think Doug or someone posted some of them in my talk a while back - 366 degree circle or some such?) --Ludwigs2 08:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- P.s. just as a matter of humor, did you realize that that the yard is within a 5% variance of the meter? a meter is 39.37 inches, and yard is 36 inches, so each is roughly 1.5 inches (<5%) from their presumed common mean. I will leave the obvious conclusions as an exercise to the reader. --Ludwigs2 08:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- They were both redirects until a couple of days ago to Pseudoscientific metrology, until the MY one was changed. That was presumably to aid readers who weren't sure about capitalization, which seems reasonable. Dougweller (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- The relation between yards and metres is well known. On British roads they are already using the metre, and labelling it as a yard for practical and cultural reasons. Apart from significant opposition to use of metric units the problem is that the metre's abbreviation "m" is already taken by the mile and we can't have people thinking that a dangerous obstacle is 500 miles ahead, or that it's only 73 metres to Glasgow. Did you realise that the inch is precisely 2.54 centimetres? Similar attempts to simplify conversion are documented for units in the Middle Ages. E.g. the English/Scottish ell was three Rhenanian feet, apparently because the main market for Scottish wool was in Cologne. Hans Adler 11:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Guys, the yards/metres thing was a joke. Your cursed, relentless logic is interfering with my pseudoscientific humor. --Ludwigs2 20:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
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. --Ludwigs2 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. --Ludwigs2 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 Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#watchlist_issue. 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. --Ludwigs2 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...) . --Ludwigs2 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? --Ludwigs2 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. --Ludwigs2 22:10, 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)
- 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)
- as to the rest, I'm on it. I may need through next weekend, though; will that be alright? --Ludwigs2 20:36, 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. --Ludwigs2 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)
- 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. --Ludwigs2 00:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm alluding to 2000 debate. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 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)
- Nope, it was Gore against Bush in 2000. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 1 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. --Ludwigs2 01:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Expert writing
Will you have a go at this? Online_tutoring, User_talk:Dkephart#Request_for_help. 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? --Ludwigs2 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. --Ludwigs2 08:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)