User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

blocked for disruption at Intelligent Design

archived to reclaim user talk space
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have blocked you from editing for 55 hours because your edits at Intelligent Design (along with its talk page) have become disruptive. Your edits have been tendentious and have rarely if ever met Wikipedia:Verifiability. You have seldom cited sources and you have synthesized WP:original research even after many warnings, even from impartial editors, that this behaviour was not acceptable. Although you seem to be civil and polite, your disruption has been so unsettling as to spread to other areas of the project. While I most strongly disagree with the refactoring of talk page threads which has gone on at ID, I believe this has happened because other editors have been wholly at a loss as to how they might deal with your ongoing disruption. If, after all these collaborative and patient attempts to work with you and offer helpful input, you have become angry, I am beginning to wonder whether Wikipedia is appropriate for you. There is a place for your PoV in this article (indeed, in some meaningful ways Wikipedia's sourced coverage of this topic canny should be inclusive of what I take to be your PoV) but you may not understand how your own behaviour, rather than being helpful towards that end, has been harmful to it. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing at Intelligent Design. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Gwen, I'm trying to make sure I understand the basis for the block. Can you say who the "impartial editors" were who said Ludwig's behavior was unacceptable? Roughly everyone I've noticed except you seems to be somewhat involved. Can you say which areas of the project the "disruption" has spread to? Can you say who, specifically, has made collaborative and patient attempts to work with Ludwig? Also, please be specific about what POV you think Ludwig represents, as that seems to be germane. Note I don't doubt your good faith in making the block, but I want to be convinced that it's properly supported. Gnixon (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I too am a little concerned about this; it looks like most of Ludwig's recent edits have been to talk pages, where verifiability is less of an issue. It's true that he's tenacious, but other than brief bouts of incivility he seems to be trying to work within Wikipedia policy to improve--at least from his perspective--the articles. I disagree with almost everything he's proposed, but a block seems pretty severe. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I didn't block Ludwig for his PoV, I blocked him for disruption, which can grow to be every bit as worrisome on a talk page as in the article space. Rather than being drawn into a discussion as to which other editors have been impartial, please take quick look at this talk page to see how Ludwig has been cautioned and warned by many others about edit warring, original research and disruption, along with helpful hints as to how he might carry forward without being disruptive. I warned Ludwig twice [1][2] to stop disrupting the talk page with his orginal research but he paid no meaningful heed. If Ludwig is willing to stop talk page disruption, I'll be happy to unblock him straight off but if he makes such a promise and breaks it, the next block will be longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I think you (meaning Zimbardo) should review his edits to WP:NPOV such as this one, where Ludwigs2 made several changes to longstanding policy. Each edit was reverted by editors and admins who found the edits to weaken NPOV. But I agree his talk page edits, though tendentious (tenacious might not be the exact term I'd use), were easily ignored or answered. However, most editors of articles in the fringe areas, such as Intelligent design, quickly tire of answering the same old questions week after week. I think there's a point where an editor has to say, "OK, I'm not getting my idea across to everyone, so let me find some verifiability." Ludwigs is making the same arguments that are made weekly. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC) "Tenacious" is definitely the word I'd use. I have found myself completely exhausted in trying to keep up with him. And I wouldn't try to defend the change to the NPOV page. He has obviously been treated quite shabbily by other editors, but of course that doesn't excuse bad behavior. However, I just reviewed the changes that he's made since the warnings Gwen linked to. The only real OR I can find is maybe this, and it would be a stretch to call it that; he's making an argument from first principles about how policy should be enforced, and he's doing it on the talk page. I think that the ID talk page is the wrong place for this argument, since it's a more general one about how Wikipedia policy should be enforced. He does edit quickly, and it gets very tiresome to keep up with him, but that doesn't seem to rise to the level of "disruption" either. In summary, I don't see that since Gwen's warnings, he's demonstrated any serious problems with verifiability or with original research, and I hope that she will point out where I missed them. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I think it might be good if Gwen Gale provides some diffs, post warning, that specifically show disruption. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Speaking only of Ludwigs2's recent interactions at ID talk, I too think the block was excessive under the circumstances and probably more provocative than calming given his assent hours earlier to suggestion made here [[3]]. From a quick scan of the tenor of discussions prior to my arrival there yesterday, I see an editor trying to apply advice he's been given constructively, to winnow and refine his arguments or suggestions, and the timing of the block came at a point where signs were things would quiet down on the talk page. Yes, there's argumentativeness, (his fellow contributors on the page have been so as well), but nothing intractable. Ludwigs2's sought advice how to communicate his concerns or recommendations and I see that uninvolved editors have advised him at turns to be bold, to re-initiate discussions if they've been closed prematurely, etc., only to be shut down almost immediately when he's tried it, and so he's been fed many mixed messages. And I really am not pointing fingers at anyone but unfortunately some of the advice given him has been packaged with perhaps unintentionally condescending put-downs, which all of us know discourages the recipient from accepting advice as sincere, and usually prompts the recipient to snipe back. I understand that ID is a controversial topic and an FA, but it's also one of the most tightly controlled in all the wikipedia. The "disruption" I've seen there recently is, relatively speaking, quite minor compared to what I've seen elsewhere.Professor marginalia (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC) diffs and block length Here are diffs of the edits made by Ludwig to Talk:Intelligent Design after my two warnings, which led me to block this user: Here Ludwig accuses Hrafn of ownership. Here he acknowledges he may be blocked and says he's not interested "in raising a ruckus about it if it happens." He describes the worries over his disruption as hysterical and "fascinating from a social-psychological perspective." He wikilawyers by lengthily quoting Wikipedia talk page policy and sums up by saying, "this policy has no bearing." Then he tries sarcasm. He proposes a lead paragraph offering no new citations but rather, removing the existing ones for "easier reading" on the talk page, making additional unsourced commentary. Then he adds another unsourced suggestion. Later he makes another long suggestion but offers zero sourcing to support it. Then he makes another suggestion which he specifically says would not be affected by sourcing, followed by a comment that he might file an RfC if he is reverted. Then he accuses Dave souza of WP:OWN and bad faith, among other things. Given the many pleas, nudges and warnings Ludwig had already gotten, and his lack of heed to my very straightforward warnings (instead, he continued to add kilobytes of unsourced text to the talk page), based on long experience I thought the most likely risk of ongoing disruption was longer than 24 hours but much less than a week. I carefully settled on 55 hours because this would have the block expire after more than two but less than three nights and days, which I thought to be the shortest time during which he might be most likely to sway his thinking about how he has approached his editing goals. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Gwen, you explained originally that the ban came out of Ludwig's tendency to violate NOR and to ignore verifiability, and to make disruptive edits. Ludwig accuses Hrafn and Souza of ownership because he's in a dispute over whether or not he's allowed to make any changes; tonally this is typical to the rest of the debate, and not disruptive. The things you talk about as "unsourced suggestions" do in fact seem like stylistic and structural changes, and not OR or unverifiable; if you set that low a standard for these complaints, it would be hard to find an editor with completely clean hands. Explaining that he plans to file an RFC doesn't seem disruptive. I understand that the article is contentious and that tempers are short, but Ludwig's edits are well within the etiquette of that particular debate, especially considering that people keep deleting his comments. I think there has been an error of judgment and I think Gwen should lift her ban. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC) There is no ban. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Semantically you are correct, it's a block, not a ban. That said, you should lift your block, then. Even if I completely agreed with your assessment of the disruptiveness of Ludwig2's participation, the length is excessive for a first block. I suggest time served instead. I do want to thank you for presenting a comprehensive statement of your justification. ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I'm willing to think about lifting the block after 24 hours, although I still believe 55 hours would be more helpful to the project. I'll lift it now if Ludwig promises to stop disrupting the talk page with unsourced commentary and suggestions (never mind paragraph after paragraph of them). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I think it needs to be lifted now. It's gone long enough already. I'm not sure that a promise is required, since I'm not sure I agree that everything Ludwigs2 did was disruptive. Much of it struck me as sound contributions, and good faith attempts to engage in constructive discussion. Perhaps if the archiving wasn't so zealous he would have an easier time being collegial. I do not think you have consensus for this block. That should be taken to AN/I I suppose, as I already have. ++Lar: t/c Block. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC) His suggestions were unsourced and as such, original research, which I had warned him about twice. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure that pointing out that some scientists apparently (mis)use the term "theory" when referring to the ID fantasy/belief is that big of a POV shift, if any, nor is it OR. That suggested change struck me as quite well sourced, and along the lines of a clarification. How many times did you guys shut L down on that by prematurely archiving? Heck yes this is a contentious area and long time editors have done the project great service, but I suggest that perhaps the pendulum has swung too far. I wonder if it's possible for anyone to make a case for a change, however well reasoned, without it getting shot down or prematurely archived a few times first, if they are not already long time editors on the page? ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I very rarely edit Intelligent design any more, but I made an edit to the lead a few weeks back and it is still there. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC) You're a "habitual" editor there even if you haven't been as heavily involved recently as in the past, aren't you? ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC) And no one has deleted his comments, they've just been refactored, so the talk page isn't so long. His changes are not stylistic, in fact, they are attempts to change the POV of the article. I think Gwen's diffs are good evidence of this.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I suggest that the archiving at that talk page is done somewhat too soon, sometimes. ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I think the archiving of Ludwig's comments was unfair, always. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I think repeatedly prematurely archiveing things is a bit disruptive too. Perhaps you might want to warn some of the participants there. ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I tried once but was told about a "time-honored drill". When I hear about time honoured drills on talk pages, my eyes glaze. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Stand up for what you think is right, or don't block people over (partly, at least) complaining about the very thing you yourself disagree with but choose to "glaze over" on. Time honored drills sometimes need review, after all. ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Lar, I didn't block Ludwig for complaining about the archiving. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I concur with Lar and Zimbardo that the block should be lifted immediately, and it should be done without preconditions. Zimbardo is correct that Ludwig's posts don't constitute disruption, particularly if one considers his reasonable demeanor in the face of having his comments repeatedly archived away. I don't think it's fair to force Ludwig to admit he was disruptive in order to be unblocked when at least 3 others dispute that characterization. I do echo Lar's appreciation of your posting a justification, and I appreciate your consistent stance re archiving comments. Gnixon (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Why should we unblock disruptive editors to encourage them to continue to disrupt the encyclopedia? This user stated explicitly at WT:FRINGE that he supports the classic attempt of POV-pushers to institute a theory-fact dichotomy. In other words, this particular user has an editing philosophy that runs directly counter to most if not all of our content guidelines. That he was blocked for continuing to beat a dead horse at Talk:Intelligent design is a sign of Wikipedia moving in a positive direction. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Sorry, but I disagree with the analysis of these diffs as well. Ludwigs2 is exchanging "gripes", yes, but in terms of claims he's suggesting "original research"--in these diffs that's just not so. All of his suggested changes there are easily sourced, and the passage he proffered a fairly straightforward redraft of existing-and sourced-text taken from the article. He removed the existing citations simply for readability on the talk page - we all do this almost always on talk pages where the footnotes don't appear anyway. There was a relatively minor confusion raised by his suggestion of using "transcendental" for "supernatural" which was sorted out easily with minimal fuss. His proposed changes are completely within the realm of editorial concerns, what content should be emphasized in the first paragraph in the lead and what content should follow it. There are valid reasons both ways, and that's what talk pages are for--to form consensus for proposed editorial changes. But the complaint that the suggestions above were original research is a misreading of these diffs, a hasty conclusion based perhaps on the fact that he'd argued from original research in the past. And one last comment, and I'll move on, but the quick archiving in the recent go-round did exacerbate the problem. Again, I'm not pointing fingers because I know it's called for in many situations. But on the footsteps of advice that he reopen the discussions given him elsewhere, it puts into context where much of the personal sniping was coming from. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Truth be told y'all, I've kinda been waiting to hear from Ludwig :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch

I'll refactor it if you can help me. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick shot at it. Does it need more? --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

no, that's much better,thank you.  :-) --Ludwigs2 18:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

New Editor Help?

Hi, Ludwigs2! I saw you on the Wikiquette Alerts page and your repsonses seemed reasonable and fair and I just needed a third opinion on something. If I'm completely ignorant and in the wrong on this issue, I don't want to make a fuss of it. It just seems that ever since I submitted a couple new articles the other day, one particular admin has had it out for me. I realize that I submitted the articles before I should have. I hadn't gathered the proper references I needed. One article asserted notability and I was about to reference it when this particular admin marked it for a speedy deletion, which seemed out of place. This same admin continues to revert edits I make to articles, claiming that I haven't cited a reference, but aren't there millions of articles on Wikipedia that claim facts and statements without any regard to a reference? Am I wrong to assume that it's ridiculous to assume that EVERY change to an article has to have a reference? I feel singled out by this admin due to the fact that he/she claims, mistakenly, that I am a biased self-promoter. If every edit I make is going to fall under his/her microscopic scrutiny, I'd rather not take part. What do you think? Superhero77 (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

well, it would really help if you could send me diffs, or at least point me to the articles and changes you were making. Wikipedia does have rules for article inclusion and sourcing (see wp:notability and wp:reliable), but some editors (unfortunately) get a bit over-zealous about certain topics. without knowing what you're talking about, I can't really know what's happening.

incidentally, if you read the speedy delete templates, you can add other templates to slow the process down and give some time for talk. if you don't know how to do that, I can show you. --Ludwigs2 17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Your revisions

Thanks for leaving a note on my talkpage about your proposed revisions. Since this is a holiday weekend I won't have a chance to review anything in detail, but as soon as I do I'll let you know what I think. Good luck and happy editing! Doc Tropics 18:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

ID article antics

I've been browsing the ID article discussion recently and I appreciate your attempts to argue for neutrality in presentation of the material in the face of a rather ferocious unified front. Alas, I'm not motivated to put in the time (and put up with the aggravation) necessary to get into the argument, but I've got to believe that third-party editors and admins (particulalry if they have a background in writing and editing) would recognize both the article's problem with advocacy and what appears to be a very inflexible editing environment (that elaborate table over one choice of noun! Sheesh!). What do you think is going on there? I don't get the sense that pro-ID-ists are anywhere involved (are they?), yet the collective unwillingness to acknowledge the blatant polemicism in the writing surprises me. The most modest editorial suggestion (such as pointing out that the second paragraph doesn't need the sentence mentioning "junk science" when the previous four sentences said basically the same thing) is met with fierce argument. Anyway, just wanted to offer a word of encouragement and get your perspective on the situation if you care to offer it. FYI, I'm sending this same note to Gnixon. -- BTfromLA (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks, encouragement is always helpful. wikipedia can be a lo-o-ong haul sometimes...  :-)

really, I think this is a path-dependency issue (if you know the term...). there probably was a strong contingent of pro-ID people editing this page at one point, who have probably all (by now) been disgusted or politicked out of the discussion. What's left is editors who are conditioned to react as though any suggestion of change is an overt threat (a threat, if nothing else, of a lengthy, unproductive, and ugly talk page debacle), and who react accordingly. some few, maybe, are 'out to get' ID (mostly on principle), but most are just stuck in a habit of mind which they may not even realize they're stuck in.

I swear, the more time I spend on wikipedia, the more appreciation I have for Buddhist philosophy. this place is defined by dukkha.

if you get a chance, I've been rewriting a couple of parts of the ID page at User:Ludwigs2/ID_reworks - it will be a much more congenial atmosphere there, so if you'd like to comment or edit, please feel free. once it's worked out, I'll see what I can do about presenting it back on the ID page. --Ludwigs2 06:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Dukkha, indeed. I got only as far as one paragraph, but take a look and let me know if anything there seems useful. BTfromLA (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for reverting the vandalism that was done to my talk page. Much appreciated! Caden S (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Fair tone

Template:Fair tone has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I've responded. --Ludwigs2 19:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerns

"...if you can't even see that there's a logical distinction between a neutral critique and a directed attack, then I respectfully suggest that you take a step back until you can. there's just no reasoning with that kind of emotional blindness. "

I have a strong viewpoint on this, yes, and looking back at the language there are some things there that could be misunderstood and I apologize if they are misleading.

I would, however, ask you to consider your own comments in their own light. Were the ones directed at me a neutral critique or a directed attack? I will attempt to be clearer with my statements. SDY (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

SDY - my sincere apologies, because I think that I am out of line myself. that's why I'm taking the rest of the day off. I'm just getting very frustrated with the kind of conflicts I'm running into here. half the time I discuss things with people here I feel like I'm not even disagreeing with them, but I still can't get what seem to me to be simple and obvious points across without feeling like I'm getting a tooth pulled. there's no willingness to engage in discussion here at all, that I can see, just a constant, knee-jerk bickering.

ehchg... need a break. please ignore my temper as best you can, because I don't mean to aim it at you in particular. --Ludwigs2 23:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that your more recent response was any more polite, but I will forgive you because I understand how contentious this topic is. I know that I should be more careful in how I phrase comments on that page and should really write more "politically" but it is simply not my forte. Assuming good faith is difficult in such a controversial topic. SDY (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

after a good night's sleep, I'll affirm that it wasn't particularly polite of me. I'll make a similar comment on the talk page, just to be fair. I really am trying to edit in good faith here, you know; I'm just not used to the kind of over-aggressive argument style I find here. --Ludwigs2 18:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The public argument over it is rarely conducted in good faith, so it's a real challenge to drag that back into the rules when it is so conspicuously absent in other discussions of the same topic. I may back off the discussion entirely, politicization of science brings out my bitter and argumentative side. SDY (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

lol - mine too, just from the opposite direction.  :-) let me just say that I wouldn't want you to back away from the conversation at all, despite my ill-tempered comments. I'm just frustrated because I'm feeling shut out. you are generally respectful and responsive, even if I disagree with you. unfortunately, that makes it a bit easier to let loose on you, when my irritation is really focused on much more trollish editors. --Ludwigs2 18:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

thanks for the note SA. --Ludwigs2 21:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Seek consensus before change on policy pages

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Note that for high profile policy pages (WP:NPOV is one of them) it is customary & recommended (see {{policy}}) to seek consensus before change. Do as you think most fit, but revertwarring there against a couple of people who put the previous consensus back, awaiting the new one is, um, frowned upon. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Francis - please read the diffs. the version they are putting into place is not the original consensus version (even though they are presenting it that way) - it's their own modified version which they are trying to present as consensus. I understand your concerns, but you're misunderstanding the context. --Ludwigs2 15:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring. Please.

I'm going to be blunt. You're currently edit-warring on at least two different pages - WP:NPOV and Quackwatch. You've barely skirted WP:3RR with your reverts of multiple editors at WP:NPOV, and if I looked at your editing as an uninvolved admin I'd be pretty tempted to block you for obviously inappropriate edit-warring and gaming 3RR by going just outside 24 hours. Likewise on Quackwatch - you don't need to revert to check references from an old version. Use the page history. Bottom line: you are edit-warring, and you need to pursue dispute resolution, solicit outside opinions, and stop edit-warring, or you're going to be blocked. MastCell ^Talk 15:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, this request for page protection is disingenuous; you're asking for your favored version to be protected, which violates the protection policy, but more importantly, you're mischaracterizing the situation as a multilateral edit-war requiring protection when in fact you've single-handedly reverted 4 or 5 different editors 5 times in the past day and a half or so. MastCell ^Talk 15:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell - <sigh...> you know, I can't speak for SA, and OrangeMarlin is borderline, but you, at least, seem to respect Wikipedia as a whole. you've had enough encounters with me to know that I am generally reasonable in conversation, and I would think that you (at least) would prefer to let this discussion have a proper hearing rather than try to force it into place by gaming the system. I mean seriously - I can't even see why you hang out with SA, mush less why you cooperate with him to subvert the consensus system.

and you know as well as I do that favored or not, that is the stable version, prior to any discussion. let's not be silly... --Ludwigs2 15:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You do seem reasonable in conversation, which is why I think you might be convinced that you're going about this the wrong way. NPOV is a bedrock policy. It's not going to suddenly change because 4 or 5 editors want it to. Just request outside input, and let other people comment and, if necessary, revert. Lots of editors watch WP:NPOV. If the changes don't have consensus, someone else will revert them. It happens all the time.

I don't "hang out" with SA, or collaborate with him to subvert Wikipedia. You're welcome to comb the history for my opinions in that regard, but suffice to say that sometimes I agree with him, and sometimes I don't. Sort of like I sometimes agree with you and (OK, perhaps more often) don't. In this particular case, I think you're clearly edit-warring against a number of other editors. WP:3RR doesn't make exceptions for defending a "stable" policy revision, though I understand where you're coming from. "Stable" versions do change, and the only way to know if this change actually has broad consensus is to step back see if others besides you disagree with it. I haven't reverted the article, well, at all, and I think SA et al should stop as well. It's actually not important to me which version is up right now, so long as a discussion is moving forward on the talk page. I'd encourage you to take that attitude as well. MastCell ^Talk 16:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

ok, your point is taken, and I'll admit my own lack of perspective on these matters. I think I'm just going to have to face up to the extent that ScienceApologist gets under my skin and learn to deal with it (which means, in part to stop projecting it on others, such as yourself). C'est la vie... --Ludwigs2 16:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

It is clear from the recent history of this policy that the changes you wish to make do not yet have consensus. Therefore it would be best to restrict yourself to the talk page in the near future except in respect of uncontroversial changes. I have declined to protect this page at WP:RFPP on the basis that, when feasible, blocks should be preferred to page protection. Obviously, the best outcome would be for the edit warring to cease and then no blocks would be necessary. I express no opinion on the change you wish to make and have left this message on your talk page simply to clarify what I wrote at WP:RFPP since you have performed more reverts in recent days than any other single editor and are thus at greatest risk of being blocked. CIreland (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

CIreland - please check the diffs - I was not making changes, but rather opposing them. --Ludwigs2 16:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked you 24 hours for edit warring on a project page and trying to skirt 3rr in doing so. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|I admit my error (had a fit of pique there) and promise not to engage in any more reverts on WP:NPOV until the talk page discussion is complete. I would like to be able to continue participating in the discussion, since I am the primary voice for one side of the debate, but that can wait a day if you think the block is necessary...}}

Stand by, please; contacting blocking admin.  Sandstein  17:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Ludwigs understands the problem, has apologized and made good promises, and I recommend an immediate unblocking. -- Fyslee / talk 17:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for input on this unblock request at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving assistance

Hi, Ludwigs2, would it be alright if I setup an archivebot for your talkpage? The page is currently around 130K, and some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. But I could set up a bot that would automatically archive inactive threads, and then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore? Let me know, --Elonka 20:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

errr... sure, go ahead. I hadn't really thought about the issue before. is that archive bot something that I can exercise any programmatic control over, or is does it just operate on a set of preset criteria? --Ludwigs2 15:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and seeded it. The way it'll work, is that it'll check your talkpage once every 24 hours (I'm not sure when the next pulse is, but it should kick in by tomorrow), and automatically archive any thread which has had no activity for several days. These threads will be copy/pasted to /Archive 1 until it's "full" (I've set that as 75K), and then the bot will automatically create the next numbered archive. This is very configurable (see User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo). You can adjust the max size of archives (I recommend between 75-250K), as well as the time delay of how long until a thread is considered "inactive". Some people set this as 60 days, and other extremely busy pages archive every few hours. I eyeballed your talkpage and guesstimated based on traffic that a 7-day cutoff was about right, but you are welcome to tweak it. Or, let me know and I'll make any adjustments needed. :) --Elonka 19:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ah, ok... this is very cool.  :-) thanks. and no worries, I'm good with computerish things. but I'll certainly send you a note if I have any troubles figuring out the options. --Ludwigs2 20:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

frog help

i was browsing around and found your post about needing pics of frogs, and i have quite a few, but i dont know how to place them on the page....

one goo site i know of is http://allaboutfrogs.org/gallery/index.html

Phillip.ludlow (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Phillip - I really appreciate the offer, but the 'frogs' thing was just part of a demonstration of a template I made for someone else. I don't really need pictures of frogs. if you'd like top post a pic of a frog here on my talk page, though, that would be cool.  :-) can't have too many frogs, is what I think... plus, if you'd like instructions on how to add pics to a page, just ask. --Ludwigs2 15:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

typo on your new proposal

I corrected a typo on your proposal here. It said "undo weight" instead of "undue weight" --Enric Naval (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

lol - thanks, I appreciate it. don't want people to get the idea this is dieting instructions.  :-) --Ludwigs2 19:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Pope shenouda

According to wikipedia policy only the commentator may strike his comments if he deems so. Stop your vandalistic action. You will receive only one warning before i contact wikipedia 77.248.185.98 (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

first off - if you're going to use warning templates, please follow the proper procedure - last warnings are only for extreme cases.

second, any editor can remove material deemed inappropriate and offensive. if you'd like, I'll ask for an administrator's intervention and they will remove the comment and the section entirely. if you have something productive to add, please do so. however, please do not waste all of our time defending dumb humor like you're doing now. --Ludwigs2 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Belated answer

Hiya, I was reviewing the previous ANI thread, and remember that I was meaning to answer your question that you'd posted here.[4] Sorry about the late reply!

In terms of improving your writing style though, here's my recommendation: Avoid terms that could be seen as pejorative, in reference to the individual as opposed to the article. For example, accusing SA of being "myopic", even though done in a somewhat roundabout way, was still a bit uncivil. Saying he had a "dictatorial stance when he does bother to communicate", also came across as an attack. Better would have been to omit the "myopic" parenthetical, as well as the "stance" clause, but the rest was probably fine, though still marginal. There's still the issue that your comments are referring to him as opposed to articles. This is a subtle point, so let me see if I can explain it another way: I often see editors get into a war on an article: Redhat says, "Doodads are red!" to which Greenhat says "No, they're green!" and back and forth. Then even if they move to the talkpage, rather than arguing based on sources, like, "Okay, I've got 27 books that say doodads are red, and only three that say they're green, what do you have?" they instead get into arguments where they are trying to personally convince each other of the rightness of their argument, and then they lose track of the article. Then it boils over to ANI, with Redhat saying, "Greenhat is an idiot, and he won't admit it!" and Greenhat saying, "Redhat was mean to me!" But ultimately, as far as third parties are concerned, it probably doesn't matter what Redhat's and Greenhat's relative IQs are, nor the level of their respective social skills. Instead, the community is far more interested in what the article says, worrying less about content, and more about whether or not the article is in adherence with Wikipedia policies. Administrators (usually) aren't going to take action on an editor because he's "dumb", but they will take action on an editor for calling another editor dumb (even if the statement is true, it's still a personal attack). However, if Redhat said, "I put in 25 sources saying that doodads are red, and Greenhat deleted all of them, saying that doodads are green, but he didn't add any sources," then that is something that administrators can take action on, because Greenhat just violated WP:V.

Bottomline, don't worry about ScienceApologist's visual acuity or posture. :) Stick to his actual actions on an article, and if you see a problem, produce specific diffs of problematic edits, and you will have a much stronger case. --Elonka 01:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... I guess maybe that's the problem - I hadn't thought I was making a case for anything. but ok, I can see your points. I'll be more focused in the future.  :-) thank you. --Ludwigs2 02:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

tsk template

I'm not sure what this template accomplishes. Applying it is equivalent to saying "I think you're being uncivil" - why not just say it? It's not like it needs flagging for posterity or for fixing. Sounds like another thing to get into edit wars about.

Put another way, if the person doesn't realise people think they're being uncivil, then there are kinder and more effective ways to tell them. If they do realise and just don't care, then this isn't going to make any difference at all.

Pseudomonas_(talk) 10:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pseudomonas - I wasn't thinking about the person being uncivil, exactly. I've just noticed that talk page arguments seem to escalate because people feel the need to point out that they've been wronged. e.g.:

1. person A says something rude to person B
2. person B feels the need to point out that what A said was rude
3. person A needs to comment on how rude it was of person B to point that out
4. repeat ad nauseum...

I thought that a quick, non-explicit, non-insulting way of tagging an incivility would cut the process off at step 2 and make it less likely that it would carry on. it's a way to be non-responsive without having to eat too much crow. I could be wrong in my assessment, though, which is why I wanted this feed back. do you think it wouldn't work? --Ludwigs2 17:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look back through the history of WP:CIVIL and related articles, you'll see that this goes against current consensus. I use a copy of an old template that I've edited slightly to start a conversation:

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.
• Assume good faith of other editors.

I hope you find this reminder helpful.

--Ronz (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

hey Ronz - can you point me to some particular passages? I could look through myself, of course, but if you happen to know a couple of places off-hand it would save me some time. also, if you could give me a link to that old template, I would find that useful.  :-) --Ludwigs2 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronz has currently been banned from participating in certain areas of Wikipedia. If you would like a rapid answer to your question, you may wish to ask him at his talkpage (where he is still allowed to participate). Otherwise, he will resume normal editing next week. --Elonka 19:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ah. I guess I'll just skim through myself, then. thanks for letting me know. --Ludwigs2 19:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The civility templates were are removed because of concerns that using them could in many cases be considered uncivil, and in many more cases could escalate problems. I think you can find discussion on this in the archives of Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

ok, works for me. --Ludwigs2 00:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Nudge

You seem to be removing several reliable sources from the Quackwatch article. If this is just an interim measure as part of a larger edit, please feel free to ignore my notice. I just want to make sure that when you're done, all the sources are still in place. Thanks, Elonka 22:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

no, sorry, I thought it was clear what I was doing. I removed one source because it was duplicated, and removed some broken refs. however, I'll go and revert what I did, and approach it more cautiously, with better edit summaries... --Ludwigs2 22:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

By my count, this edit removed multiple sources, that were not used anywhere else in the article.[5] --Elonka 22:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, I see that now. that was inattention on my part. I still think the move from the 'site' to the 'usefulness' section is justified, but I will preserve all the current sources, and rework them into the later section. --Ludwigs2 22:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again.  :) Regarding duplication in the lead and the rest of the article, be aware that a certain amount of duplication is actually encouraged, since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. In other words, there should be no information or sources in the lead, unless that information, and those sources, have already been covered in the rest of the article. For more on this, see WP:LEAD. Thanks, and carry on, --Elonka 19:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm planning on expanding those sources in the body as well, but I haven't gotten to it yet. should I do that first (moving the sources into the body now, and re-adding them to the lead later), or just continue working through the edits as is? --Ludwigs2 19:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Best practice is to work on the article first, and lead second. Having a fleshed out and stable article usually makes it much easier to write the lead, rather than the other way around. --Elonka 19:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

ok, - I've resolved the problem with the Ladd citation. I'll move the Jaroff citation back to it's original place in the body - that one is under discussion on the talk page anyway, and so it's probably best to leave it be for the time being. --Ludwigs2 19:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

When reverifying a source, would it be a good idea to update the access date parameter? An argument for the old date is that should we ever need to use a web archive, the older date will be available in the archive sooner. An argument for the newer date would be that it helps other editors know that the current content still supports the claims. I'm not sure if there is any real guidance on this point. GRBerry 23:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

ah, sorry, I'll do that now. I'd assumed that stable online resources (like newspaper archives) wouldn't need to be dated in quite the same way, but I can see your point. --Ludwigs2 23:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My point? I tried to ask a question. I don't pretend to know the right answer to my question. GRBerry 03:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

ah, sorry - I misread (and then flew off on my own little head trip - lol). for anything retrieved from the web, it's a good idea to update the access date. that's because webpages can shift, move, disappear, or transform their content very quickly, and what's there when you read it may not be there when the next person goes by to look (the date helps explain the difference to them, and helps them track down the version you read, if they care to). it's not as important with things like newspaper or journal articles (since newspapers and journals are usually quite diligent about keeping their archives preserved), but it's always a good idea. --Ludwigs2 03:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not violate the conditions of editing and make a revert or you may be banned. QuackGuru 18:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that adding a lot of criticism is a WP:WEIGHT violation. QuackGuru 18:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, please do not take the bait. Just continue editing the article in good faith. As for comments at the talkpage, I would appreciate if you would go back and refactor or delete anything which is a comment about an editor, as opposed to a comment about the article. Thanks, Elonka 19:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

harumph. alright, that's probably for the best. --Ludwigs2 19:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Being able to remove comments like that, is a good sign of emotional maturity, and can have a powerful effect in de-escalating a situation. I'd recommend doing the same thing at Talk:Alternative medicine, since saying whether you "like" or "dislike" an editor really isn't relevant to the editing of the article. --Elonka 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Head spinning

Just stumbled in to say that I'm glad to see I'm not the only one made woozy by some of the assertions around here... BTfromLA (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah, I know; it's a veritable Six Flags of opinion-mongering, sometimes. I just need to keep reminding myself to have a sense of humor about it, otherwise it makes me crazy.  :-) --Ludwigs2 01:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:136.152.179.179

Sorry; that was me! Thanks though. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

no problem. what are you doing there, actually - it doesn't look like actual genome sequencing (too may letters in the mix?)... --Ludwigs2 03:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

ID lead rewrite

Hi. I looked at your edits (I'm confining myself to the lead section at this point). While I think you've made some improvements, and I certainly admire the attempt, my conclusion is that your changes don't go nearly far enough in addressing the problems with the lead. The existing version is a mess--in terms of pov, ordering, quality of info and, in my view, absolutely terrible prose. It needs to be rebuilt, which probably means being rewritten almost entirely. For example, I think that the current lead puts far too much emphasis on the specifics of the Kitzmiller decision. It states--I'll use your draft--"Intelligent design arguments were first formulated by certain United States creationists in the 1980s in the wake of court decisions barring the teaching of creationism as an alternative theory to biological evolution in the public schools.[4][5][6]." But is this really true? On one hand, we could point to William Paley as having formulated an intelligent design argument. On another hand, if I recall correctly the Discovery institute cites some 1984 precedent, before the anti-creationism decisions. And many sources point to Philip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial (1991 or 92) as the galvanizing document of the modern ID concept. What I'm saying is that it seems an oversimplification to equate ID as a whole with "Pandas and People" and the Dover school board's attempts to promote it in their public schools. A landmark case in the history of ID, surely, but not the whole subject. So we need to finess the question of origins as well as making decisions about what info is key enough to merit inclusion in the lead's overview of the topic, plus dealing with the NPOV issues that have been a sticking point. I think that my own proposed opening paragraph and SDY's proposed outline of the lead provide a place to start developing the lead without inheriting a bunch of pernicious traits from its ancestor. What do you think? -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you. I was working on the assumption that any attempt at outright rewriting would generate such a tremendous head-to-head conflict that actual progress would be impossible. tell you what, though... if you really want to rewrite, I'm willing to work with you and follow your lead. let's start creating something on the talk page (or on the article itself, if you think that would be feasible) and see what happens. --Ludwigs2 20:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I'm not going to be able to follow through on this--my work and travel schedule is about to ramp up, and even if that weren't the case, swimming against the current here is pretty unrewarding. I'll be around the next day or two and I'll respond to comments on my proposed intro, but then I'll make myself scarce. I'll still log on to wikipedia from time to time, though, so if you come up with a draft that you'd like me to give an editorial once-over, let me know. BTfromLA (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ah, that's too bad. I figured a little cooperative effort might break through the negativeness on that page (it's a tactic, you know - breaking up the people who want to make changes into isolated individuals, and then drowning them in unconstructive criticism). but I understand; it sucks having to deal with this much passive resistance. I'll see what I can do before you leave.

...and if your travels take you down San Diego way, send me an email. I'll buy you a cup of coffee.  :-) --Ludwigs2 18:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, guys. My involvement has fallen off for reasons similar to BT's, but I'll probably jump back in again at some point (weeks, months?). I just wanted to praise your efforts to write a new lead, and your continued discussions on the talk page. Writing a lead from scratch is tough work, but I suspect it's the best way to get past the resistance. Discussions about alternatives seem much more productive than criticisms of the existing lead. Your conversations with Neal and Dave do seem to be clarifying various things. Anyway, more power to you.... Gnixon (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Issuing warnings now?

You're not an admin. Why are you giving warnings like one? [6] Odd nature (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

errr... that's a standard warning template for multiple vandalisms. you don't need to be an admin to place it on a vandal's page, it's readily available via Twinkle, and it's a necessary step in the process of dealing with vandalism. if you'll check the Template:Center history, here, you'll see that RGaikowski was committing obvious vandalism.

in short: what are you talking about? --Ludwigs2 23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, beat me to it. The template is {{uw-vandalism4}}, and is perfectly appropriate for any editor to issue in good faith before a report to WP:AIV. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

ON, I think you're out of line here. If Ludwigs2 gave a level 4 warning as the first warning (unless it's some egregious behavior issue), then he'd be out of line. But it was an escalating level of warnings. For a user to be blocked for vandalism (or some other violation of Wikipedia), there has to be a final warning. I'm not in agreement with everything Ludwigs does, but in this case, I think he's fine. If you look at my contributions, I probably give one level 4 warning a day, on average. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sexual orientation

Thank you so much for weighing in and seeking compromise. I think what's needed is a broader consensus, which hopefully the RfC will bring. I've stepped back from engaging Cooljuno directly because I didn't want it to be a debate between "my" version of the template against "his". I'm really pretty open to any consensus version -- but as it stands now we essentially have one guy's revert-defended POV.

Dybryd (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This edit

This edit is much appreciated. Antagonistic vandals make the Wiki a worse place to be, and I thank you for cleaning it up. Cheers, Antelan 02:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

my pleasure, believe me. I just wish there was some electronic way to smack those people on the back of the head. --Ludwigs2 02:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if you can figure out how to do that, let me know (umm, gently though). Antelan 04:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Old fact}}

The debate seems unresolved to me. I too am in favour of an unobtrusive inline template. What is your reasoning? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by this question. all I did was merge 'old fact' into 'update after', per the talk page consensus - it should still be an unobtrusive inline template. I preserved the BANNER option in the 'update after' template (even thought I don't like it) because I didn't want to break any pages that use it, but I could easily remove it. is that what you're suggesting? --Ludwigs2 00:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am confused too! The consensus, if there was one, seems to be not to merge them. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 01:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

lol - did I misread things? let me go look again (easy enough to fix, if so...) --Ludwigs2 02:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

ok, looking at this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Inline_Templates#Merge_proposal:_Old_fact_into_Update_after the resolution is ambiguous. but I think it doesn't matter - the version I made works both ways (you can just type {{Update after}} or {{old fact}} and it will act just like the old 'old fact' template. if you prefer, I can tweak it so that it says the same thing that 'old fact' used to say when you use it without parameters. at any rate, I'll update the doc file. --Ludwigs2 02:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's good. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 02:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

SS7

Hi,I changed the headers and footers in line with your request - they are smaller and text has been changed. Please add your approval to SS7 article discussion page. Thanks! (www.ss7-training.net was the external link, I removed the subdomain) Leedryburgh (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Dgtsyb keeps removing the sanitised links, can you please ask him to stop this behaviour once and for all? Again he is vandalising my talk page. Leedryburgh (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - could you indulge me (either on the SS7 talk page or on my talk page) and explain what your problem with the links are? I'm having trouble discerning the issue and as an observer of the page I was hoping for some sort of speedy mediation of this issue rather than the edit war which was going on most of today Beardybloke (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your information on my talk page, but could you let me know if you find anything in particular offensive about the current version of the page - I dont see any of the issues you were worried about. I'm going to have one last attempt to discuss this like normal people before I give up on both Leedryburgh & User_talk:Dgtsyb .... Beardybloke (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ludwigs2. You have new messages at Talk:Signaling System 7#Edit War July 2008.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Dgtsyb (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit of yours here, please see this edit of mine here. I encourage you to continue working on this article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, are you ready to consider collapsing links on Signaling System 7 and SIGTRAN? — Dgtsyb (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)\

I'm ready to consider anything that doesn't lead to another round of edit-warring. can you give me an example of a collapsible link here? --Ludwigs2 19:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There are two examples provided in my last communication on Talk:Signaling System 7. Recreated here:

“...move the link from the External references section up beside the Reference. Such as, instead of “Link to online version of text below,” perhaps “[http://www.ss7-training.net/ Full HTML version of (Dryburgh 2004).]” to the right of the reference. See WP:EL#References and citation (source links should not be placed in an external links section). Better still, move it all the way back to the url tag. See WP:CS#Including external links (webpage links can be added to the title part of the citation with ISBN added when possible). ...Dgtsyb (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)”

— Dgtsyb (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what caused the trouble before, isn't it? as far as I'm concerned, the page is stable right now, and I don't want to disturb that without a really really good reason. why would this change be sufficiently better to risk starting another edit war? --Ludwigs2 19:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the dispute was over linking to the site at all, given the obnoxious ads that it originally contained, the COI of its author placing them, and the IP address editing to establish them. The MOS and several independent editors point out that it is appropriate in the References section and inappropriate in External Links, and that having a redundant link in External Links does not improve the article and may even detract from it. Otherwise, I am tempted to tag the External Links section as needing cleanup, because there is the link in this section pointing to a website whose only purpose appears to be to sell SS7 training. — Dgtsyb (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

<sigh...> as I said before, the link in the external references section is there because it points to extra material that is not referenced in the text.

look, I don't want to spend the rest of my life negotiating this highly irrelevant point. I'm satisfied with the way things are now, and unwilling to change them. if you want to change things yourself then I suggest you take the following approach

1. do not fight this in the article itself. that means:
   • do not tag the section with any maintenance or dispute tags. that will lead to another edit war.
   • do not move, remove, or alter the current links (or any other part of the article that might be interpreted as changing the links). that will lead to another edit war.
2. make an argument on the talk page for why you think this change should take place
   • be detailed, convincing, and clear
3. wait until you have reached an agreement with LEE about the change you want to make (that will probably mean that you have to discuss things and make compromises)
4. If for some reason you just can't reach an agreement with Lee, give it up. go buy a cappuccino, or play with your kids, or go roller-blading, or volunteer for your favorite presidential candidate, or whatever. no sense wasting your life fighting for something this trivial. --Ludwigs2 20:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What extra material is there in the there in the External Links section that is not already identified in the References section? I don't see that. The References section references the entire book, does it not? — Dgtsyb (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

yeesh! what part of "I don't want to argue about this any more" are you not getting? take it up with Lee, or let it go. --Ludwigs2 20:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I just asked a question is all. I won't bother you any more. — Dgtsyb (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ok. to answer your question, then. the bulk of the site Lee offers is not referenced in the text; the link is provided precisely as an external reference for people who want to read beyond (well beyond, in this case) the material referenced in the article. the analogy would be an article about the novel Moby Dick - you'd need references to specific quoted passages in the references section, but if the entire novel were available online, that would have to go separately in the external links section (since no one is quoting the entire novel). the only argument you can really make here is that the dual presence somehow puts an undue emphasis on Lee's site, but that argument (as of this moment) doesn't seem particularly convincing to me. but as I said: give up on trying to duke it out, and sit down and express your concerns to Lee and see if you can reach a compromise. and remember that it's not going to be the end of the world if you lose this argument. --Ludwigs2 20:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou for helping with Talk:Signaling_System_7. I see user User_talk:Dgtsyb was blocked. Thanks for your time. Leedryburgh (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Leedryburgh (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)