User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ludwigs2. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ludwigs2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Quiddity (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Words to avoid

Please read: Words to avoid: However, whereas, despite ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the reverts :) --Bfigura's puppy (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

no prob. :-)--Ludwigs2 (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting mine too - much appreciated. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 19:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Add me to the thanks list! :) ParticleMan (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too! thanks for reverting the crap on my userpage :). Ironho lds 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Thank You! for reverting vandalism in my userpage Vipinhari (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too! Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 13:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well! :-) —David Levy 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And Me(ARBAY (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)) could you tell me how to get an IP temporarily blocked

all the info you'd ever want (and a lot you don't) can be found here: Wikipedia:Block :-) --Ludwigs2 (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou (ARBAY (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

Likewise from me. (Wonder which vandalism account that was?) --Orange Mike | Talk 01:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Kaiba

I would appreciate it if you didn't revert edits to my old userpage. Thanks. — Moe ε 20:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - sorry. :-)

It's ok :) — Moe ε 20:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Little reward for you

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your great anti-vandalism work on both articles and userpages. Better build yourself a userpage so you have somewhere to stick this thing! Ironho lds 02:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage revert

Thanks! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

copyright material

It was to my prograciouse intention of removing article 'Etekone', how dare you have the audacity in restoring the material of which whom i soley own the copyright of. I suggest that you remove the article from its corrosponding position and think about your inadaquate actions. Yours sincerly

IP.08787985897028

Dear IP - if it is copyrighted material, then please use the appropriate Wikipedia template to mark the page for removal, which you can find here WP:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Single-level_templates. it's the fourth one down, regarding copyrights. Blanking the page is generally considered vandalism, and is usually reverted as a mattter of course. However, Wikipedia will remove copyrighted material quickly, and help you assure that it remains off the site. my apologies, of course; I meant no disrespect. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. I was away, so I didn't see it. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 00:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Many thanks indeed, Vishnava_talk 20:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts!

Thank you for the vandalism reverts on my user page. It would appear that 68.92.206.66 (talk · contribs) is one of the many (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mariam83) IP socks of banned editor Mariam83 (talk · contribs). --Kralizec! (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this userpage revert! Much appreciated --Faradayplank (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, allow me to add to the thanks for reverting userpage vandals. Looks like that IP was a sockpuppet of this guy and is a little steamed about the MfD on his user page.... Anyway keep up the great work! Beeblbrox (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

More thanks

I also thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. The last one you got to a split second before I did, but I reported the vandal to WP:AIV and he/she was immediatedly blocked for 55 hours. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And similar thanks from me. It's truly amazing what will cross the minds of vandals, is it not? And there I thought my page was rather tame compared to so many others. ;-) Risker (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah... probably the guy was just looking for someplace to goof around, and your page just happened to be there. people are weird that way. :-\ --Ludwigs2 21:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, in my case he was vandalising an article I'd worked on, and had reverted him and left him a warning about it a few days ago, so it was a targeted hit in my case. For how little vandalism patrol I do, I seem to get hit fairly often; that's about the third or fourth time. Risker (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for catching vandalism to my user page. If I'm angering vandals that must mean I'm doing something right, right? --Gimme danger (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's the user name :D. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - could be either. :-) the trick, I think, is to push people just enough to get them out of their mental ruts, but not so hard that they want to jump you in the alley. not saying I do it well myself, but... --Ludwigs2 23:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

202.3.37.74, Playstation 2 & User:TreyGeek

Slightly humorous that we were in a revert war against this person. I started watching his contrib page after his last set of changes to Playstation 2 and saw him vandalize my user page. You undid it seconds before I got to it and put in a request to block him. Your quick, thank you. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

confused

You appear to have nominated my user page for speedy deletion. . . why? evildeathmath 13:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, sorry. it was attracting a lot of vandalism, and seemed to be nothing more than old monetary scam to begin with. I assumed that you would resolve the issue if in fact that was what you wanted. --Ludwigs2 17:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

gotcha--no, it was a parody of a Nigerian scam email that I pasted in there when I was experimenting with setting up the user-page; I realized belatedly that it was probably still there and that's why it got deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evildeathmath (talk • contribs) 17:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you can just recreate the page, if you haven't already. If not, I'm sure we can get an administrator to do so. let me know if you have any problems. :-) --Ludwigs2 17:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I deleted the stuff because Manaspunhani is my old account. I want it to be deleted can u do it or tell e how to do it. If you need proof that the User: Manaspunhani is my account u can chech the IP Adress. Pl. delete User Manaspunhani Enthusiast10 (talk —Preceding comment was added at 18:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry, my bad. :-) --Ludwigs2 18:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

whoops, forgot about the other part. I think you can just log into the account and ask to have it deleted. let me look it up and I'll get back to you. --Ludwigs2 18:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

see this page for instructions: Wikipedia:User#How_do_I_delete_my_user_pages.3F --Ludwigs2 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

O hai

I appreciate that you're trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism, but I'm not exactly attempting to vandalize. I'm Saint Arctica, and I lost my password and can't log in. Please refrain from reverting my edits to my own page in the future. 70.7.181.183 (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry, I'll try to remember. the anon addresses are hard to keep straight, though. can you make a request to get your password? --Ludwigs2 19:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hi, you were kind enough to invest time here Talk:Signaling System 7#third_opinion - could you please revisit or suggest what to do next as the user Dgtsyb just seems to be continuing in a harmful fashion so the basic question of linking to a book remains unresolved? Leedryburgh (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for looking again, I note that you stated "my recommendation is to leave the link out of the article until a less commercial format can be given (Lee, leave a note on my talk page if you need help with technical details); once that is provided I see no reason for it to be excluded". The book has been made available by the publisher in Kindle format. Few people have it and it costs money 50+ USD. The website I linked to contains the entire book contents. What is it you suggest I do? Leedryburgh (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

well, seems to me you have a couple of options, with variations.

convert the HTML to pdf format, and make a direct link to the pdf.

Not possible as publisher could never sell copies and would never agree to that. I've done well how it is for the commons. Leedryburgh (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

remove or drastically reduce the banners on the html page that you have.

I've done that, I've made them from x-large to medium. I can reduce further if need be but it looks small to my eyes. Leedryburgh (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

the first option might require you to make a new agreement with the book publisher (don't want to interfere with their Kindle revenues) - I don't know anything about that, so you should ask them directly. however, I can help you convert it to pdf format if they agree, and that's what you deside to do.

Sorry as stated above, not possible. Leedryburgh (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

for the second option, can you edit the website to remove the banners? I can help with that as well, if you need assistance. a more appropriate format (at least wikipediawise) would be to have an introductory page that says "the rights to this book are owned by such-n-such a publisher, copies are available on Kindle, but the publisher has graciously allowed it to be published for free in html format, yadda-yadda-yadda, more information about the author can be found here" (and at that point link to your own page, where you can say what you like). the important thing is to remove even the most remote implication that Wikipedia might be involved in endorsing, supporting, or doing whatever for your particular book above other books or venues. in other words, the book has to appear on wikipedia only as a notable and useful text in the field, without (as much as possible) any association with your commercial activities and interests.

I don't really understand the above, but can work with you on it. Just direct me more at the Talk:Signaling_System_7 page. Leedryburgh (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean, I know that from your perspective that might be a very difficult distinction to make, but think of it this way: wouldn't it be more satisfying to have someone take one of your seminars because they read your book and thought it was tremendously useful, than to have them take the seminar because they got smacked in the face with a banner? just include it here for its information value, and let other things follow as they will. :-) --Ludwigs2 23:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

We can talk about this, just direct me more at the Talk:Signaling_System_7 page. Leedryburgh (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs), could you please mediate further in this matter? Leedryburgh (talk · contribs) does not wish to permit external link examination tags to be applied to the section containing his links. These are links that were not removed, so I take it that Leedryburgh (talk · contribs) does not agree with your proposed compromise, above. Dgtsyb (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what user talk is talking about as usual. Leedryburgh (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going to add comments to the Talk:Signaling_System_7 page and will then add the link back in again. Lets continue the discussion there. Leedryburgh (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

well, Lee - have you made the kind of changes we discussed above? I don't think you should reinsert the link until you have de-commercialized it. --Ludwigs2 22:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Eye exercises and pinhole glasses

Hi Ludwigs2. Thanks for helping with the eye exercises article. If you haven't already, could you take a look at what Ronz just deleted from the pinhole glasses article and his stated reason for doing so? I think this provides some definite insight into his mindset. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, I want ahead and re-added a revised version. please read the talk page, though; I feel uncomfortable about intruding on these pages too often, and I think do you guys can negotiate a working relationship. --Ludwigs2 16:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. After Ronz's deletion, I thought about revising it myself, but given his reasoning and being somewhat familiar with his tendencies I figured he'd either revert again or place more tags at the top, which he may still do. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

well, sometimes you have to push for what you think is right, and if that causes a dispute, that causes a dispute. I'll keep working to try to get you guys on the same page, but don't worry about the tags if they happen. all that does is call attention to a problem, which may be what's necessary. --Ludwigs2 17:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLP Special Enforcement

Hello. Your comment was removed from this page. If you still think it's worth weighing in to the discussion, try the talk page. - brenneman 04:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... thanks, though I'm a bit confused by that. the distributed link to that page said to leave comments there, and the project page itself said to feel free to edit that page. if that is not the intended behavior, then I think you should edit those comments out (assuming that you haven't already). I was simply following instructions as they were given.

by the way, am I to take it from your tone that you personally don't think it's worth weighing in on this subject, or that you don't think it's worth it for me to weigh in on the subject? --Ludwigs2 17:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh goodness! That wasn't at all my intent, so I'm glad that you asked. I think this is an important issue, and I want as wide a discussion as possible.

You are correct, the "Interested editors are invited to comment here" link points to the main page, not the talk page and that should be corrected.

I believe that your comment was removed because is was a signed, personal-style comment. Signed comments are normally moved to the talk page, in this case though the person who removed your comments didn't do that. I came along afterwards, and my "if you still want to..." phrasing was because quite a bit of further discussion had occured. I thought you might want a chance to read that newer discussion before commenting.

brenneman 23:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ah, I understand. :-) I will go and read the talk page again, and post my comments there (if it still seems appropriate). I do thank you for taking the time to notify me, and I apologize if I caused any difficulties. honestly, I hadn't anticipated the wikipedia learning curve to be quite as steep as it's turned out to be. if I make any other errors that you notice, please do point them out to me. I can use all the help I can get - lol. --Ludwigs2 03:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Accusations

Please use the WP:RFC/USER process instead of revert warring over this on the article talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Phil, please do not accuse me of revert warring until I have stepped over the bounds of the 3RR rule. and please do not defend ScienceApologists unwarranted behavior. I will go and file and RFC user as you suggest, but I would ask you to reinstate my comments on the talk page. refactoring talk page contents without cause is clearly a violation of wikipedia policy. the other option is for me to ask for Administrator intervention. --Ludwigs2 01:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First, you can be blocked for revert warring without stepping over the 3rr line. Second, article talk space is for discussing the article - not for attacking or accusing other users of various real or imagined misdeeds. Please use caution. Vsmith (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

well, Vsmith, it seems as though this system is so thoroughly gamed that it is impossible for me to take any recourse against ScienceApologist's actions.

there's no point in filing a wikiquette alert because it will be immediately marked as resolved and forgotten.
there's no point in filing a mediation request, because SA has already demonstrated a complete disregard for any form of communication about article content.
there's no point in filing an RfC/User because (through SA's refactorings of my talk_space posts) I cannot make other editors aware of the problem. and no doubt that would be disappeared as quickly as a wikiquette alert anyway.
there's no way for me (that I know of) to request neutral administrator action.

This is fine. I can't fight people who aren't willing to be honest in their dealings, or who are willing to go to these extremes for such a small victory, so I'll back off from the article until such a time as the climate changes. however, I will continue to dispute the neutrality of that article, if only passively.

C'est la vie... --Ludwigs2 02:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ludwigs. You may as well continue filing wikiquette alerts or an RfC/User for SA if you feel they are warranted. It is certainly more constructive than posting it on the talk page of an article, which is for discussing improvements to the article, not behaviour of other users. If SA is refactoring posts on your talk space (ie - here), or in other user_talk pages, I would again bring that to the attention of admins. Cheers, DigitalC (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, you may want to review Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments, particularly the section stating that "deleting material not relevant to improving the article" is an example of appropriate editing anothers comments. Feel free to delete THIS after reading it though, as this is your talk page. DigitalC (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

no worries; I don't delete meaningful discussion until it's outlived its usefulness. and I've decided to try to work things out with ScienceApologist directly, so let's see how that goes first. thanks! --Ludwigs2 22:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

DTTR

WP:DTTR. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

that is not a policy or guideline, and I am not required to follow it. when in fact you begin behaving as though you were an experienced editor, I will begin treating you like one. in the meantime, I will follow bureaucratic procedures as I deem necessary. --Ludwigs2 01:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Busy and curt internet tone

ah well...

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Honestly, I think the big "gulf" between us is that you seem to be under the impression that there exist this group of "hard-core" skeptics who are "just as fringe" as the people who believe in "magic". This is a big problem for me because science is pragmatically if not philosophically hard-core skeptical. The issue is that while scientists don't necessarily dismiss claims out-of-hand for methodological reasons, they do dismiss claims out-of-hand when they are a radical departure for no other reason than it would be impossible to reformulate a lifetime of learning to the new paradigm: and it may not be worth it anyway.

So what we have is a scientific community that is violently silent on many fringe subjects and treats them meanly. Really harshly: with ridicule and disdain. This ridicule and disdain festers and brews and doesn't come up to the surface very much. References to it are hard to find and tend to show up in weird places (for example, I have an introductory astronomy text on my desk which dispatches Ufology in very harsh terms -- but there are no peer-reviewed articles which do the same).

The issue for me is that Wikipedia is a first-stop reference for people who have varying degrees of education. It is dishonest for us to tell students who read Wikipedia that any idea is taken more seriously than it actually is. We need to be forceful in our approximation of reality. Are you a student who wants to study the physics of ghosts? Sorry, fellow. That's just not going to happen. Giving students false hope in that regard is something that Wikipedia should not be in the business of doing.

We have developed a set of standards that really do lay this out well. WP:WEIGHT means that we do not pretend that ideas which are far-fetched deserve treatment with kid-gloves. They should be forcefully dispatched and labeled for what they are. That's simply so that people don't get the wrong idea. We aren't here to right great wrongs. We're here to write an encyclopedia that places the rights and wrongs of the world in plain site without commentary or pandering.

People seem to think that skeptics are "way out there". In a sense they are right: skeptics are simply militantly stating what is whispered in the halls of the ivory tower. They are good sources for information on what people think because they are so blunt in their critiques. The reasons skeptics exist is because the scientific community generally doesn't waste its time with the plethora of half-baked and sometimes fully-baked but not-well-considered ideas that get tossed around the world. Skeptics are brutal and they use tactics that can be at best described as cruel. They do not shy away from using any rhetorical technique necessary to get their point across. They stoop to the level of those which they attack and occasionally loose arguments based on their incivility rather than their substance.

I come across as a skeptic at Wikipedia simply because I think that there is an intrinsic bias on this site toward accommodating fringe beliefs. I have a list of people I think should be banned from editing articles relating to pseudoscience. I've been successful at getting a number of people banned in the past, but at this point have found it more successful to simply be a stick-in-the-mud when it comes to this stuff. Most fringe-proponents simply get too tired of hitting their heads against the brick wall to continue. I simply let them wear themselves out. Some have more patience than others. Those are the ones I have the most trouble dealing with.

At this point, I myself am something of an expert on pseudoscience. There is almost nothing that I don't know about with regards to what kind of kooky alternative ideas are out there. I see it as Wikipedia's job to explain to people how kooky they all are with respect to the ideas out there which are manifestly conceded to be not kooky.

ScienceApologist (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

believe it or not, this actually makes a lot of sense to me. I mean, I have more patience with goofy fringe theories than you, but mostly that's because I'm an educator, and it's habit for me to wean people off of silly ideas slowly and carefully. trust me, I'd be as saddened as you to see Wikipedia turn into some kind encyclopedia of the paranormal.

Personally, I see the gulf between us in a somewhat different way. I'm not particularly anti-skeptical (the whole dialog about that was just an attempt to make a distinction that never really got across, so it kind of fell flat on its face). my concern is this: while I have no problem calling something like 'remote viewing' pseudoscientific, unsupported, and generally 'out there', I'm uncomfortable watching it get beaten to death with a rhetorical shovel. me, I'd like to see 'best foot forward' articles, with this kind of structure:

a clear, unbiased description of what the subject is
an explanation of the subject means in the culture
a clear, concise critique sufficient to remove any idea that the subject has a basis in scientific reality, but not so intrusive that it starts looking like an attack on a belief structure.

my view is that we should let them believe in remote viewing if they want - it's harmless, and people believe all sorts of things in this world that make me shake my head - all we need to do is make sure that it's clear that the belief is a belief, without any scientific basis. talking about remote viewing in particular, this has been my only complaint - I liked the version where the last line said that "Martin Gardner called it a pseudoscience", and I would have liked adding the 'among others' part as well, with the right sourcing. I just don't like having pseudoscience tucked into the actual description of remote viewing because that feels like a sucker punch, and I hardly think we need to sucker punch this topic to get the point across.

all I would like to ask of you is that you give me the benefit of the doubt for a couple of weeks or so - don't think of me as someone trying to promote fringe topics, but rather as someone who's trying to keep the punches from going below the belt; tell me if you think I'm going too far, and why, and expect that I'll listen to you and try to reach a compromise. I think if you do that, you'll see that I'm really not trying to work against your intents; I'm just trying to establish a kind of... politeness in the article.

let me know if that works for you, because I've gotta say, the stick-in-the-mud thing makes me crazy. :-) --Ludwigs2 19:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue with WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution is that it doesn't really capture the essence of what reliable sources have to say about pseudoscience/fringe beliefs. If so-and-so says this, well, then, why should we care? A better way to put it is to point out the factual contradictions. Unfortunately, a lot of fringe-lovers think that everything is an opinion that doesn't shine goodness and light on their pet belief. That's why we fight. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following you; or maybe I'm just not understanding the problem you're seeing. so, we have a fringe topic that mainstream scientists haven't much bothered to write about (for the obvious reasons). you want to include one of these authors in a fringe topic article (again, for the obvious reasons...). the PA clause is intended to prevent people from telling you "you can't do that because it's just one or two authors...," right? all well and good, I'm with you, and this far I don't think we disagree. me, I'd like to add some wording that also keeps editors from implying that those one or two authors represent the entire body of scientists (though I'd like to do it in some way that preserves the author's scientific authority). I'm not saying that they don't mind you - this is just a statistical argument: it's problematic to extrapolate anything from small n. I mean, no way I would want to oppose claims about representativeness that have some authority, I just don't want to go there without it being sourced.

factual contradictions are really a content issue. once the source is in there, then all you have to do is give a short, factual explanation of why the source thinks the Fringe theory doesn't hold water. if pro-fringe editors want to include an explanation of why, say, the laws of thermodynamics don't apply, or why a implies b and b implies c, but a does not imply c, let them (within the bounds of reason, sanity, and WP policy, obviously). I have never yet met a wacky theory that won a calm debate with scientific reasoning, and people will only learn by seeing both sides.

99% of the people in this world are basically reasonable, and even most 10 year olds can tell when something is not adding up. the other 1% you can't do anything about except let them have their say and keep putting them in context. you're just going to make yourself crazy if you keep trying to bring them completely into line. --Ludwigs2 22:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

question: can I restore the lead in 'remote viewing', or are you likely to just revert that again. and if the latter, what kind of compromise can we reach? --Ludwigs2 01:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Restore the lead? Whatever for? In other words, I don't understand one bit your rationale for "restoring it". ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

that's explained just above the point where you said you don't understand it. did you not bother to read what I wrote? --Ludwigs2 18:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You're obviously misreading the current version by claiming that pseudoscience is "tucked into the description". I simply do not understand your point. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"As with all pseudoscientific claims of extra-sensory perception and the paranormal..." seems pretty tucked in to me... --Ludwigs2 18:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

But that's true. As with all such claims this is the way it is dealt with.... I'm failing to see your "tucked in" idealization? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

no... saying that reputable scientists call it a pseudoscience is true. implying that it is a pseudoscience by the phrase as with all pseudoscientific claims... is (at best) the introduction of a fact without reliable sourcing. you are simply asserting 'pseudoscience' as part of the definition without grounds.

again, I really am trying to work with you here, SA. please give me a little good faith cooperation. --Ludwigs2 19:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We aren't IMPLYING it's a pseudoscience. We are simply stating that, as with all pseudoscientific claims of the paranormal, remote viewing as claimed observable phenomenon is dismissed by the academy. That's all. I'm trying to cooperate as best I can, but I honestly think either you don't understand what I'm saying or you haven't really made a point I can see my way to following. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - SA... :-) look, I'm a native speaker of English - in fact, I scored in the 99th percentile on my language GREs. the phrase 'as with all...' IMPLIES group inclusion unambiguously. you might have gotten away with "like some..." or some other more cautious statement, but please don't feed me crap just for the heck of it. if you're not going to be serious about working with me then just say so. --Ludwigs2 19:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you might want to look up the word "as" in a dictionary. I'm being totally serious. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL [1] (originally posted by User:Clarityschmarity on 16:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)) re-added by my own whimsy. --Ludwigs2 01:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

SA, please don't edit war with people on my talk page. besides, you have to admit that your phrase is a little Bill Clinton-ish, and worth a good faith LOL on that account alone. :-) but to take you seriously, the word 'as' is a versatile comparative used in many different ways. however, language is not atomistic: combinations of words, as a rule, have meanings distinct from the combination of meanings of their individual components. as with all... as a phrase, is (so far as I can tell) always used to imply group membership.

besides, if we are down to the stage where we are trying to make esoteric distinctions about the nuances of phrases, we have gone well beyond the average reader's attention to detail. whatever you and I might think, we should clearly rephrase to create a statement that doesn't require this kind of fine parsing. therefor we should really use my phrasing, since that doesn't require the average reader to make tremendous analytic efforts to avoid misconstruing the meaning. --Ludwigs2 18:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, SA - was that you editing from IP 24.199.92.132? --Ludwigs2 00:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA. You are making a personal attack on a valued contributor to this project. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I didn't realize simply asking a question could be construed as a personal attack. since it was exactly the same edits from the anon account and SA, it seemed reasonable to conclude that he had accidentally forgotten to log in, and I was just trying to confirm if it was him, so that I wouldn't have to worry about it. you read too much into things, OM. --Ludwigs2 22:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, you don't fool me one bit--writing skills give away a lot. Accusing SA of something that he didn't do is a perfect way to deflect accusations. Nice try. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

again, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I honestly don't know what to say to you. --Ludwigs2 23:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, honesty. An abused trait. What's this? Five times? Six? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin...

if you have something nice to say, please feel welcome.
if you have something useful to say, please feel welcome.
if you have something important to say, please feel welcome.
if you have something amusing to say, please feel welcome.

other than that, I can only think that you must have something better to do with your time. but if not, then please feel welcome to say what you like. just don't have any expectations about it. --Ludwigs2 18:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA, WP:SOCK and WP:CIVIL. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that, thanks. Have a nice day. --Ludwigs2 19:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism NPOV disput

Please read the comment User:Arkuat left for you on the Buddhism talk page. The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The Never Ending SS7 Article Saga

Could you be so kind as to revisit Talk:Signaling_System_7, thanks. Leedryburgh (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please revisit. Leedryburgh (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please revisit. Leedryburgh (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Leedryburgh (contribs) needs your attention again. — Dgtsyb (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Krazilec!

User:Krazilec! keeps reverting articles, and in doing so, is compromising material. He appears to revert mechanically, not with a view to bettering material, but with the intention of displaying his administrative powers. Perhaps you could look into his reverts. You might want to look up articles on Britannica to compare, if you find yourself agreeing with his reverts. The fact that many articles on wikipedia are reverted by users whose intentions are clearly political does not make his behavior acceptable. Certainly, many would side with him, but if you checked reliable sources or did some homework, you would surely come to the conclusion that his behavior is compromising the integrity of the articles he's chosen to blindly edit. For instance, in the Arab World, he keeps reverting to a version that states that "most North Africans are Berber." This is a quotation from a study performed on the Western Sahara, and some parts of southern Morocco. This quote, however, is being applied to the entire region, which is larger than the USA. As an example of how absurdly contentious this claim is, take Tunisia. In a country of 11 million, half than 1 % are considered to be of so-called Berber descent. Would it not be more acceptable, therefore, to revert this sweeping falsity? Would it not be more appropriate to write: Berber communities exist in North Africa..and go on to write about these communities? From the most significant to the smallest? Krazilec!'s lack of knowledge of the Arab World is not stopping him from reverting well-intentioned edits. This is why his behavior should be looked into by someone. I do not wish to pursue this further, because like most, I have lost faith in this project. However, I do believe that his blind edits should be looked into. It is unlikely to happen though, as the only ones who continuously revert are clearly bent on distorting facts with a view to imposing their propaganda and ideology, be it Afrocentrism or pseudo-intellectualism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.122.81 (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, you've confused me. I checked the Arab World page, and there is exactly one edit from this ip address, which shows you reverting him. Kralizec! is an established editor who does a lot of vandalism work - have you tried leaving a note on the talk page for Arab World, or on Kralizec!'s talk page? probably it's just a mistake...--Ludwigs2 02:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

IP is a possible sock of a known vandal Mariam83. Previously engaged in lengthy edit war a year or two ago, periodically shows up as an IP in attempt to revert edits. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 03:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks Chan - I thought there was something odd about that. I was assuming that Kralizec! might have accidentally reverted a good faith edit because it came from an anon IP (I've made that mistake a couple of times myself), but I was completely confused about why 68.91.122.81 came to me, since I've never been anywhere near the Arab World page. weird... --Ludwigs2 17:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Intemperate remark

I've removed a user talk page comment of yours,[1] which in my opinion is a personal attack as well as being uncivil. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and think about refactoring your comment. Thanks, dave souza, talk 08:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks Dave. I didn't think that was particularly uncivil, particularly compared with some of the things that OrangeMarlin and ScienceApologist have said to me (would you care for diffs?). but you are certainly entitled to do whatever strikes you as relevant and meaningful. it hardly matters, though - SA could have eliminated that from his talk page on its own. --Ludwigs2 17:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Orgone

There is extensive discussion on the talk page of orgone about constructing the lead, there is significant dispute about its content, and a proposed lead made up of the work of several editors is on the page as well. Could you take a look at that and refrain from substantial edits to the lead while it is being discussed? Thanks. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry, I had no idea things were that tense. I was just filling out the lead some. were my edits objectionable? --Ludwigs2 05:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

From my cursory scan my only issues would be sourcing and that a lot of it is information better left for the "body" of the piece. The main issue is that if we reach something of a consensus the lead is likely to be changed and the more information added or changed the harder it is to reintegrate. Perhaps you could consider fitting in the information you added as part of a history section? Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

well, I could (and I probably will, because I've developed an interest in this article), but most of what I put in there I added because I thought the transition from his early work to his later work really helped to explain the topic. tell you what, I will go to the talk page and throw my ideas in there, and then rollback my changes on the main page. don't want to cause any trouble. --Ludwigs2 05:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Stay with this one, Ludwig, it's going to be fun, plus you know your stuff. Thanks! Redheylin (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Just a heads-up that you appeared to skirt the edge of 3 reverts/24 hours repeatedly in restoring the {{vague}} tag at WP:FRINGE. If you haven't yet taken a look at the three-revert policy, please do so. You could well have been blocked for edit-warring, though the admin chose sensibly to protect the page instead of handing out blocks. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up MC, I'll take that under advisement. have a nice day. :-) --Ludwigs2 22:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Saintly Patience

I admire you patience, sense of humour, and intelligence over on Fringe theories. Nice.(olive (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

thank you, I'm doing my best. I'll tell you though, it's giving me a deep appreciation for how a salmon feels: swimming upstream, dodging the bears... ;-) --Ludwigs2 02:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately for the salmon, bears hibernate. Editors don't. <\\>< (olive (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

lol! maybe we should start a movement to make that official wikipedia policy. Editors must hibernate! :-) --Ludwigs2 17:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Thank you very much for reverting 68.92.226.3's vandalism to my user page! — Athaenara ✉ 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting mine too :) I don't protect my user page cause I think they're funny. I want to see how many creative things people come up with. It makes me laugh every time!Katanada (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

please revisit

Talk:Signaling_System_7#Putting_Link_Back —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedryburgh (talk • contribs) 14:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Updated Leedryburgh (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify

I'll get back to the actual ID talkpage another time, but before I logged out I wanted to clarify that my most recent comment there was absolutely not directed towards or at you in any way. You are neither a new editor nor an SPA account which is what I was addressing. I may actually agree with some of the points you raise, but was explaining what I regard as an almost inevitable status quo. In any event, it certainly wasn't intended personally and I wanted to be clear on that. Doc Tropics 23:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Doc, no worries, no problem at all. and if I somehow implied that I was taking something personally, or that I was upset, that was not intentional. it's hard enough to communicate on Wikipedia; I try to give a lot of grace room to everyone (myself included) with respect to misunderstandings. :-)

have a good evening! --Ludwigs2 23:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Royal Rife

Please show me the experimental observations that disprove Rife's treatment claims. Oldspammer (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't meant to prove or disprove Rife's claims - I'd only meant to tone down the overly harsh statement at the end of the lead. I'm not really interested in entering into the content dispute here; just making stylistic edits. --Ludwigs2 01:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The scientific community has concluded that Royal Rife's theory was flawed and his devices of no practical use.

This statement says not only mainstream scientists, but all scientists think that Rife was a fraud / misguided / wrong in his theories and practices, whereas,

Rife's treatment has been unanimously condemned as worthless by mainstream scientists, and "Rife devices" have been blamed for the deaths of cancer sufferers who have used them in place of medical treatment.

says that mainstream (some) scientists think just the treatments (maybe even just the current day ones) are useless, and some recent deaths have been blamed on using exclusively the Rife treatment regiment.

Between the two of these, I prefer the original (bottom) than updated version (top). The reason is that some scientists, and some accusers can be mistaken without painting every scientist so broadly. The talk page, its archive, and prior history of the RR article will show the reasons to object to the cited, referenced flawed ACS web pages, as well as most of the Sidney Morning Herald references.

I would even change the latter quotation to indicate that it is not experimental research scientists, but really mainstream cancer medical spokes people who make copious amounts of money promoting and using surgery, patented toxic chemotherapeutic drugs, and burning via radiation. You see, there is quite a conflict of interest between a safe, inexpensive therapy like Rife's, and specifically the cancer treatments recommended and still used today by mainstream, orthodox medicine.

Have you ever tried to determine how all things historically got to be the way that they are now? It is a twisted tale of intrigue and deceit. There are many cases where scientific endeavors have been tainted by money interests and the results published as factual in publications owned and controlled by "?????" I encourage you to research mention of medical suppression in videos and on the web. It goes deeper than just medicine by the way. Oldspammer (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oldspammer - please edit my statement if you think it's incorrect. as I said, my only purpose was reducing a very strong statement against Rife to a moderate statement against Rife. if you think it should go further, be my guest. --Ludwigs2 04:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

July 4: Please remove those statements and references regarding Rife that lack the required Wikipedia neutral point of view. You cannot post such a broad statement as "the scientific community has concluded Royal Rife's theory was flawed" without referencing what you claim constitutes "the scientific community". Such undefined, unreferenced terms are otherwise merely personal opinion and clearly infamatory [from the root infamous]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.73.193 (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... I think this is a non-problematic inference. as it says in the article, the scientists involved in cancer research (=the relevant scientific community) have demonstrated that the causes of cancer are not traceable to any single virus, and that the instruments Rife used could not have detected viruses anyway. that being said, I'm open to different wording if you'd like to discuss the matter on the talk page. how would you prefer that we state it? --Ludwigs2 17:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

ID, etc.

Hi Ludwigs2. I've just finished reading through your recent discussions at Talk:Intelligent design. Respect. Gnixon (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, apologies if i offended. the convo seemed to be a dead horse, from my perspective. i'll try to update myself on the full context of it before taking any further actions for the time being. Amerique^dialectics 22:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks. :-) if it would help, I'm happy to give a synopsis of the issue (in as objective terms as I can); I'll probably have to do that over on the administrator's noteboard, anyway. just let me know. --Ludwigs2 23:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

please revisit stupid never ending debate about a single link

Talk:Signaling_System_7#Putting_Link_Back , thanks Lee Leedryburgh (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

When you get a moment, could you please review Lee's new links at SS7 and SIGTRAN pages? Thank you. — Dgtsyb (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ok... in the spirit of helpfulness, I sucked down Lee's site and made changes the way I think they should be. Lee, I sent the revised version to the contact link on your web site. check it out and let me know what you think; no pressure if you don't like it, I just wanted you to see what I was after. --Ludwigs2 02:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Leedryburgh has posted hist latest attempt. Please review the links at SS7 and SIGTRAN pages once more. Thank you. — Dgtsyb (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, when you get a moment, could you please review Leedryburgh's latest links at Signaling System 7#References and SIGTRAN#References? Thank you. — Dgtsyb (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI

reclaiming space

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You can reopen any talk page thread you like, but please do allow sources from PoVs other than your own if need be. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I appreciate it. and I will not over-extend the privilege. --Ludwigs2 21:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also keep in mind, you can't span sources to synthesize an assertion. If you want something in the article text, the only way it'll stick is if you cite a source which says spot on the same thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

<sigh...> this is part of the ongoing discussion I'm trying to have there. the point I'm making is that current sorry state of the ID article is based on a fairly blatant OR synthesis that's already been made around scientific methodology, and the trouble I'm having is that when I try to raise points about scientific methodology (to show the OR that's being applied) it gets flagged and hidden as irrelevant to ID. I can't discuss ID because of the OR interpretations; I can't discuss the OR interpretations because it supposedly doesn't relate to ID... catch 22. we'll see what happens; all I really want here is a chance to pursue the argument to its end. --Ludwigs2 21:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried to introduce reliable sources and been rebuffed? If so, diffs please. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

if you read the beginning of this section that I just reopened, you'll see that it's a description of the theory of Thomas Kuhn (one of the more pre-eminent scholars in the philosophy of science). I was gearing up to start introducing more such authors when the section was archived. the point of introducing these authors, incidentally was to show that many of the problems in the article stem from an interpretation of scientific methodology that excludes any positive or neutral discussion of ID as unscientific and unreliable, when in fact any such interpretation is not supported by by the current understandings in the philosophy of science (long way around to get to what strikes me as a common-sense result, but whaddayagonnado). that was going to be leverage to open the way for different sources on ID itself (which are currently excluded by the prevailing understanding...) --Ludwigs2 22:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig, the point that other editors are trying to make there is that you have pursued your argument to the end; you simply don't seem to be accepting that you've reached it. I know you have frustrations with the way some things have been handled on the talkpage, and I have great sympathy for you on that account. I agree that some editors are more curt than is useful sometimes, but especially in this particular case, they are factually quite correct. It has been explained fairly clearly, more than once, that it's just not possible to present the material that you want in the way that you want. There are several reasons and they all revolve around core policy so it's extremely unlikely that that position will change. Finally, even though you may have strong feelings about the "...current sorry state of the ID article..." keep in mind that it is a Featured Article, meaning that the WP community at large has judged it to be one the best articles the project has produced. If you ever want to see some really sorry articles I can point you to many thousands of them which don't come anywhere near the standard of the ID article. I appreciate that you feel you're trying to further improve the article, and I appreciate that, but I see no significant chance for success on your current tack. Doc Tropics 22:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Doc... I'm a scientist and an educator. I know when a discussion has reached its end, the same way that I know when an argument is built on logical fallacies, and I can explain to you why the first is not true here and the second is, if you'd care to listen. I may not know wikipedia policy as well as the long term editors here, but I cannot believe that it was intended to allow the gross misrepresentation of a subject that we have here. let's not confuse quality with neutrality. as I said very early on here, this is an excellent page about the ID movement (and should probably be merged with the ID movement page). as a page about intelligent design as a theory, though, it is sadly lacking. this is where the dispute began, because the response I got to that was literally "intelligent design is not a theory" (would you like diffs?) because it fails scientific measures of some sort. I can't help the blinders that other people wear as they walk though life -that's their business. but don't ask me to put them on myself.

honestly, I don't want to make huge changes here. but you can't even make small changes on this page without it becoming a huge deal. what am I supposed to do? --Ludwigs2 22:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Where are the diffs I asked for? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking for in diffs - maybe this one? note the comment in the {{hat}} template, which simply ignores the sourcing and discussion I gave in that section (such as it was at that point) by a simple assertion that id is already determined not to be a theory, and so further argument is irrelevant. there's another set of statements that I'll have to search for tok the effect that my sourcing can't be used because it doesn't apply directly to intelligent design (despite my clear statement that it was not intended to apply directly...) I'll find that and get back. --Ludwigs2 23:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion was unsourced. Can you show me any diffs wherein you tried to introduce reliable sources and were rebuffed?Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

two best diffs I can give you are this (in response to my introduction of Kuhn as a reliable source) here, where Hrafn excludes Kuhn as not applying directly to ID, and here where Guettarda argues that using Kuhn is outside of the scope of the article. both posts, while civil and intelligent, overlook the actual point I was trying to make, and exclude the article fo rreasons that I really never got to debate, since Hrafn archived the discussion shortly thereafter. --Ludwigs2 00:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please post the diff wherein you submited a reliable source, or any source? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

that was actually in with the other diffs, if this is what you're looking for here. --Ludwigs2 00:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are trying to make a conclusion about the science or lack of science for Intelligent design, you are utilizing original research, that is developing your own conclusion from several sources. Unless the source is reliable and specifically supports your statement, I can't see where this stands. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) In fact, OM, my argument is not trying to make a conclusion about the scientificness of ID, but rather to point out that the ID page has already made such a conclusion when in fact there's no basis for it. so I actually agree with you, wonder of wonders, and I would like the ID page to stop reflecting an OR approach. --Ludwigs2 00:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, the diff you posted doesn't seem to reference any remarks by Kuhn on ID. All I see is your synthsized conclusion which says, "Kuhn would clearly place ID (and all fringe theories, for that matter) into the category of theories..." This is spanning (also called synthesis by some editors) and is your own original research, which is not acceptable. You have already been told this many times, in sundry ways. Please stop disrupting the talk page with your own original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I understand the the synthesis issue. however, that point you referred to (while unfortunate) isn't really part of the argument I was making, which revolves around Kuhn's thesis that there is no effective or systematic way to describe or classify scientific methodology. that is not OR, and can be easily and abundantly sourced if I can have enough time in the discussion to do so. (I could also source that idea to Feyerabend and a few others, if necessary... it's a prominent thought in PoS). at any rate, I will refrain from making that particular comment in the future, since you are clearly right that it's not appropriate. --Ludwigs2 00:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ludwigs2, if the source doesn't specifically and explicitly make and discuss an assertion about ID, please don't bring it up at all. This extends not only to this one source, but throughout all of your contributions to the article, whether on the talk page or in the mainspace. If you don't stop bringing up your own original research, you'll likely be blocked for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... that makes it a little difficult to talk about any pre-existing bias on the page, since the bias I'm seeing actually lies in an interpretation of scientific methodology that warps sourcing. how does one deal one deal with that? --Ludwigs2 01:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Any pre-exisiting bias you see on the page is likely there because that's what the cited reliable sources throw off to begin with. The world is a soup of pre-existing bias. If you want the article text to make any assertions about pre-existing bias in scientific methodology which warps sourcing in discussions of ID, you must provide a citation from a reliable source which asserts pre-existing bias in scientific methodology which warps sourcing in discussions of ID. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fresh Start Intelligent Design Argument #1

I am answering you here since the discussion is closed and perhaps some points you raised weren't answered completely. In argument 1 you write, "I have shown (above) that there are prominent, reliably sourced authors in the philosophy of science who dispute that a meaningful definition of scientific methodology exists, or that any effective criteria of inclusion or exclusion can be made." The responses given to this on the talk page are correct. But what wasn't explained is that you would need prominent, reliably sourced authors writing about intelligent design theory in particular to incorporate alternative views or discussion of the disputes over whether such scientific methodology exists. I see you discussed Thomas Kuhn, but Kuhn didn't give opinion about Intelligent Design and using Kuhn as a source would be original research. One more notable source you could perhaps look to would be Steve Fuller, an expert witness for the defense in Kitzmiller. As a expert witness, he would have furnished to the court a report on the topic-there maybe something there, or somewhere in his published works, that would more fully describe the alternative opinions over definitions about what is or isn't science. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

I can't help but notice your frustration that some topics of discussion seem to get closed before you have finished your presentation. Part of this is because it seems you're going down roads we've been down too many times before, and many of your points seem to contradict basic WP policy, but here's something that might help:

Create a page in userspace as a work area; you can do this simply by making a new page with a name like "User talk:Ludwigs2/desktop" or similar. Then use that area for your composition while you get the text completed and fine-tuned. Once you are satisfied that your presentation is complete, you can copy/paste it into a new section on the article's talkpage. This way other editors will at least be able to read and consider your entire thesis. Here's a hint - be clear, concise, and include refs that say exactly what you're claiming they do in your text. Article talkpages are sometimes very dynamic and fast-paced compared to other academic forums, so I hope these suggestions will help : ) Doc Tropics 17:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks doc, that does help. I'm not sure it will actually work the way you suggest - there is an extent to which I can not develop the argument except in the course of dialog, but... most likely I'll simply go back to the RfC page and make my arguments there where the overt hostility is a bit more under-the-boards. --Ludwigs2 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see why you'd see advantages to such discussions on the article talk page but maybe one reason that's frustrating right now is that communication is difficult. It's not necessarily anyone's fault--it's hard sometimes to communicate subtleties in articles where there have been long battles over big issues and every other comment can immediately sound to editors like a rerun they've watched over and over again, even before they've thoroughly read it. Unfortunately too, it's my observation you won't get much good feedback in an RFC unless the issues are very cleanly and objectively laid forth and easy for newcomers to the issue to digest. It might be best to workshop on your talk page, it can't hurt and you can bounce ideas by me and others there if you think that would help you to develop an idea or frame a question you want addressed in the article. For one thing the approach would save everybody a lot of wear and tear that results from workshopping changes in an controversial article talk space where there really is a necessary purpose to the practice of strictly constraining discussants away from opinion.Professor marginalia (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

ok <sigh...> I'll do that. --Ludwigs2 00:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It might prove to be much more fruitful. Fighting wastes all of our resources and raises wikistress levels. Good ideas can often be put into polished shape and be welcomed much more effectively when the heat which arises from article talkspace confusions is minimized. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well put Prof! Doc Tropics 01:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt you're right. it just bothers me to run into a situation where communication is such an impossibility. very far from my normal world, and not particularly pleasant... --Ludwigs2 02:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Ludwig, I strongly urge you to follow my advice here. You'll find it will help. Hope you will have a pleasant time here in future. . . dave souza, talk 04:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dave - right at the moment I am very angry at you, and I would prefer not to have any contact from you at all for a couple of days, otherwise I will probably give you a very insulting piece of my mind. have a nice day. --Ludwigs2 05:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, dave souza is one of the nicer people around here. You should probably make an apology to him. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Prof M, Doc... I've gone ahead and started a rewrite of sections of the ID page (per your and others' suggestion), based on the aborted conversation I had with Professor Marginalia. you can see, comment on, and edit it at User:Ludwigs2/ID_reworks. mostly it's just reorganization of the material that was already there - you'll see there's a section below for bits that I've excised as I've been working, with subsections for what what might needs to be done with them. so far I've only addressed the lead; I'll add other sections in over the next few days as I think they need revision. if you move stuff around, please try to keep the sources intact (I've kept the same hidden text markers that are in use on the ID page), otherwise it will turn into an ugly mess. :-) --Ludwigs2 01:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

edit - forgot to add - please pass this on to anyone else who might be interested in looking at this, if you know of anyone. so long as it stays reasoned, any one can contribute.

Some procedures (like fast archiving) at Talk:Intelligent design seem to be at variance with normal procedure, and may not yet be well documented (fast archiving isn't explicitly mentioned in the Read This First box, nor is rapid WP:ABF(?) without first teaching people how the consensus system works... I think because that takes too much time? ) ? I would like to learn more about what these variances are, and why they were chosen. Does a document exist (so I can go RTF"M"?) or are people still working on that , or...? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Kim... first, I'm probably not the right person to ask, since I'm dreadfully opposed to the practice. as I understand it, though, this is more of a cultural thing than a matter of policy. usually it's done to remove long tangents, off-topic rants, and other talk page problems on talk pages that have high volume - a talk page like ID can get seriously congested with random stuff if some care isn't taken. but it does lend itself to some severe forms of abuse. you can look through wp:Archive, wp:Refactoring talk pages and wp:civility, to get a lay of the land, but I don't think you're going to find actual policy or guidelines directly pertaining. --Ludwigs2 22:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, several people in this section have been giving you advice on the matter, so I was hoping they'd reply here too, as it's pertinent. If you do have some idea about how the practice works, that would be interesting, to compare with the views of others. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

well, like I said, I can see some uses for archiving talk pages. the problem comes from the tricky rationalization involved: you have to say to yourself something like "every reasonable editor would consider this passage to be an unnecessary waste of space, therefore I can safely remove it." this would be fine and unobjectionable so long as that 'every reasonable editor' part is properly assessed, but it's very easy and very subtle to shift from 'every reasonable editor' to 'I can't imagine and editor who wouldn't' to 'no editor here would' to ' no editor I care about would'... then you're off into bad faith land, completely unintentionally. My general feel for it would be that no discussion should be archived so long as it's on topic, well-mannered and still generating responses (there's never any hurry to archive, unless things are getting rude), but you'll find differing opinions. you may have to wait a bit though - I see changes to my talk page immediately, others have to see them in their watchlists. --Ludwigs2 22:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

just looked at your user page - where in heaven's name did you find an image of an echidna in wooden shoes? lol... --Ludwigs2 22:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)