User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Isha Upanishad

Your attention at the above article would be appreciated. No need to respond here. Redheylin (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I told on you

User talk:Elonka#Ludwigs is violating the rules of editing Quackwatch. Hopefully she slaps you hard. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

lol - that's very mature of you.  :-) but no worries, Elonka has been quite diligent about taking me to task when I make mistakes, and I am more than willing to work with her fairly when she does. you might take a lesson from that. --Ludwigs2 20:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please consider

Please consider reviewing WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If you have a problem with another editor, it is best to follow WP:DR and WP:KEEPCOOL. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

it would be nice to have a specific referent for this comment (I could make an educated guess, but it's better to know what you're actually pointing to). I'll say, though, that I do not believe any of these links are intended to prevent me from pointing out observable facts, so long I do so within the bounds of civility. remember, wikipedia is not censored. --Ludwigs2 21:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussions are censored in a way, in that they should be appropriate for the venue and follow the applicable policies and guidelines. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] --Ronz (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see much in the way of incivility in any of these edits (with the "possible" exception of the last, and even there I don't know that it's much). what I said in each of those posts was an honest and true statement. if you'd like to point out what you think is uncivil there, please do so, because I'm obviously not seeing it. --Ludwigs2 22:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Honest and true statements call still violate multiple wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially when made in an inappropriate venue.

I didn't say each one was in itself an example of incivility. I said you should review WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA; and follow WP:DR and WP:KEEPCOOL. --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

hmm. in other words, I haven't actually done anything wrong, you just don't happen to like what I'm saying. noted. I suggest, however, that your efforts might be better spent keeping other people from behaving badly, rather than trying to keep me from discussing it. that would make more sense, no? --Ludwigs2 00:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In other words, I'm giving you a friendly nudge in a direction that I think will help keep you out of problems in the future. It would also help you to find a WP:Mentor and edit some articles that are not so controversial. Controversial articles tend to be extremely poor editing environments for learning Wikipedia Etiquette and how to reach consensus. --Ronz (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

[6] [7] [8] --Ronz (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronz... I like nothing better than consensus; I dare say I love consensus. but consensus is like sex - it needs two willing participants, otherwise it just turns into rape. I put a good bit of effort into trying to communicate with everyone I have problems with (which, all told, is maybe four or five people so far); mostly it works, sometimes it doesn't. however, when that communication gets no real response except insults and reverts, then I feel perfectly justified in pointing it out to them in no uncertain terms. seriously: when someone is behaving like a spoiled child, best thing you can do (for them and for yourself) is look them straight in the eye and calmly tell them they are behaving like a spoiled child. Nothing else will get them to behave like adults.

I do enough editing elsewhere, no worries - I've got to get away from this third-grade stuff every once in a while or it will spoil me on wikipedia entirely. but I thank you for your advice; I'll look into that mentorship thing. --Ludwigs2 04:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Nothing else will get them to behave like adults." If you continue with this attitude, you'll likely find yourself blocked. There are appropriate ways to handle the situations you describe (follow WP:DR and WP:KEEPCOOL). Use WP:AN3RR for violations of WP:3RR. For less frequent reverts done in violation of WP:CON or related policies/guidelines, use WP:ANI. For insults, use WP:WQA. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Ronz - if you have a particular objection to some particular statement I made, please say what it is so we can discuss it. If not, then please know that while I appreciate your well-meaning advice, I have no interest in vague threats of sanctions or non-specific commentary on my attitude. don't get me wrong: I'm just as willing to discuss specific errors in my behavior as I am to discuss those errors in other people, but warnings are not discussion. --Ludwigs2 18:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I personally consider the comments cited above well within the generally accepted level of civility. I tend to have more exacting standards myself, and they fall within that also. I do however myself try to word things as "the edit" rather than "your edit". I try not to use the second person at all or even editors names in a talk page discussion on an article. DGG (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks DGG, that's worthwhile advice. --Ludwigs2 23:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Very good advice indeed. --Ronz (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 48 hours for continued disruptive editing and edit warring on Wikipedia:Fringe theories. I would like to note that you just had a similar block reverted due to your promise to no longer edit war, and yet here we are again, knock it off! Tiptoety ^talk 00:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ludwigs2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm confused. unless I'm miscounting that was only the second reversion I've made in the last 24 hours, and I thought it was made with reasonable grounds. I had no intention of edit-warring, and didn't think that this was particularly objectionable as edits goes. Further, the promise you refer to was made on a different page, with respect to the resolution of a different discussion; it wasn't a generic promise never to make a reversion again. at any rate, I had (and have) no intentions of making any further reversions on that page - as I said, I thought this last was a reasonable edit, or I wouldn't have made it - and I apologize if it came across that way. your discretion, of course, but I don't think I was acting against good faith here. if you'd like to make specific requests I will happily oblige, but I think the block is unnecessary.

Decline reason:

I'm seeing a continued string of disruptive editing, good block. — MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please take care of this

I can't believe I'm coming here, but you need to watch over this. I'm not sure I care one way or another, but I do think you did an admirable job merging those articles. One guy is breaking consensus. Your tendentious style of discussion will be useful in keeping it under control. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OM - If you'd like me to talk with this guy I'll do it, but only on the condition that you stop throwing stupid crap in my face (i.e. you talk to me civilly, treat me AGF, and stop organizing things behind the scenes to get me in trouble). otherwise not; I'll let you fight these stupid, endless, petty turf battles until you burn out, and I'll try my luck dealing with whoever ends up king-of-the-hill after that. I am not here to argue on either side of the fence, except as I have to, and I see no sense trying to reason with your opposition when I can't effectively reason with you. your choice... --Ludwigs2 23:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? There are no conditions. Help. Don't help. Don't care. If you can't see a compliment when I toss one your way, then I'm not sure what else I can do. You spent a ton of time fixing that article, someone decided they didn't like it, and they were messing up your good work. If you don't want to watch over what you've done, no matter. I care, but I would hope you would. Oh well, you seem more intent on arguing, which is fine. Arguing? Not going there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

lol - well, if you were operating in good faith, then no part of this so-called condition would have been any hardship. since it is a hardship, I see no reason to put any more work into what I can only view as a lost cause. That would just be a waste. I did my part, and I hope you can figure out a way to build some consensus there, but I don't want to work around editors who mainly just kick me in the teeth. it's not worth it to me. does that sound unreasonable to you?

if you change your mind, let me know. otherwise, good luck. --Ludwigs2 01:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Royal Rife talk and science and medicine adopting new ideas / treatments

Oil and medicine

In Talk:Royal Rife#Looks like rubbish section, someone mentioned suppression can only be mentioned if we catch "them" at it.

... the bad guys would have to win here, because we don't have the sourcing we need to catch them at it...

— --Ludwigs2 20:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Chelation therapy/Archive 1#Safety protocol for EDTA chelation therapy researched and developed by dr Cranton specific says

You should also read the paper "If EDTA Chelation Therapy is so Good, Why Is It Not More Widely Accepted?"

— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.69.238 (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting medical critique that outlines current day and past activities within the USA within the science and medical communities. That "chelation therapy talk" section also contains my own insightful observational commentary regarding specifically identifying "them." I hope that the linked medical / scientific critique article would be examined in its entirety by everyone who claims that various scientific claims have been discredited by expert opinions in the media. Mention of the media is made too. The linked web page is long, but presumably, highly educated people are able to read quickly, and have the patience to muddle through it all to the end to gain any needed insights required for further intelligent discussions. US Government investigation is also mentioned (within that linked critique article)--not just the opinions of the several medical authors. Oldspammer (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Upon adding this section to the Talk Royal Rife page, MastCell nicely said that I would be banned from editing on Wikipedia if I violated guidelines in future, and removed that edit. I see now that such discussions must be further isolated from public view by conducting these on a user's talk page as per talk page guidelines. Oldspammer (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I think your comment was a good way of diffusing the situation: [9]. --Ronz (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

0RR

Please note that your recent edit appears to violate the no revert rule for this article [10]. Please join the discussion about the very information you removed, rather than removing it in violation of 0RR, WP:CON, and WP:EDITWAR. I suggest you revert your edit and discuss your rationale. --Ronz (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I did respond in both the edit summary and the and on the talk page. sorry, I took a break from the article for a bit, so I guess I lost track of where things stood. I'm certainly willing to revert my edit pending discussion on the talk page. --Ludwigs2 22:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion. I think this 0RR stuff is pure bs, but it's still important to at least look through the recent discussion when there's so much disagreement. --Ronz (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Reported

I reported your removal of content without justification to Elonka. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

thank you. is that where you would like to discuss the issue, or should we do that on the talk page? --Ludwigs2 22:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixing the commons SVG template

Hi, this is just a reminder that you promised to fix the {{SVG|icon}} template over at commons: (my request is here) - if you could do so, then that would be very much appreciated and give the images in commons:Category:Icon images that should use vector graphics a chance to be seen and have SVG versions of them created. It Is Me Here (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it. the problem at the moment is that it's a protected page over there (meaning that I need to communicate with an admin to get things done). no worries, though...  :-) --Ludwigs2 20:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, good to hear! It Is Me Here (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

by the way, let me point out that (whatever else) I've fixed things on both here and commons so that everything with an odd parameter defaults to the category page 'Other images that...'. things may not get quite where they are supposed to go, but nothing gets lost. --Ludwigs2 20:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch

Please find a better venue to discuss your concerns with other editor's behavior, such as on their talk pages or in WP:WQA, rather than on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take a deep breath, and think about what you're writing. I suggest you refactor or just plain remove your comments like [11]. --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

that wasn't a complaint about Fyslee's behavior, it was a complaint about treating Wikipedia like a war-zone that goes well beyond Fyslee. if Fyslee took it personally, I'll certainly apologize for that, but I see no reason to retract the statement. --Ludwigs2 00:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a complaint that just might get you blocked again, if you continue such behavior. --Ronz (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would second the suggestion that you try re-wording your complaint or strike the majority of it especially your references to stupidity, getting off one's high horse. While its directed at a general group of editors, that doesn't make it civil or appropriate for the talk page of the article. If you need to vent about frustration with Wikipedia, there are much better places to do so. In the meantime, I also hope you take up Coppertwig's excellent suggestion to move a section to the talk page of the article (with changes you'd like to see made) and work things out from there. Shell ^babelfish 02:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes :) Shell ^babelfish 03:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My "expelliarmus" remark was not intended to be interpreted as an attack. If you consider it as such, I'll strike it out. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

it seemed like innocent humor to me, but it's a tense discussion; I can see how shot might have taken it the wrong way. it's such a small thing, though, it's probably best to just leave it be. --Ludwigs2 00:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers!

While we may not agree on some things. I sure do appreciate your approach and good will. Cheers! An sincerely a most hardy welcome to the wild wide world of Wikipedia. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

thank you! and in a weird way I'm glad we disagree - honest disagreement only makes things better.  :-) --Ludwigs2 20:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Null edits

I noticed that you are adding and removing a single space every now and then to category pages and state in the edit comment: "Null". I assume you do it to purge the page so it updates? Then you don't need to add a space, you can just click "Save page" without adding anything. That's a real "null edit". And that will not clog the edit history with your null edits. You can learn more here: Wikipedia:Purge.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't really thought about it at all, actually - lol. for some reason I thought I'd read that you needed to make some minor change for the page to be saved. I'll make a note of this for the future though - thanks. --Ludwigs2 21:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy category Dispute

Ludwigs2, I'd like to ask for your input regarding a dispute over the recently-created Conversion therapy category, which in my view is being inappropriately added to several articles. The relevant disputes are here [12], here [13], and here [14]. I'm asking you as you have already commented on Talk:Aesthetic Realism. Skoojal (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverts to NPOV

I suggest you look at your edit history, the article history, and the talk page discussions. Please contribute to the talk page discussions and hold off on any further reverts. Please be civil, especially in your edit summaries. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

same right back atcha, Ronz. --Ludwigs2 22:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page discussions, you'll see that I've been participating in them. Please follow my example. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

and If you look at the talk page discussions, you'll see that I've been participating in them as well. more than you, in fact. I'm beginning to think that you are being intentionally uncivil here, since you are clearly misrepresenting my actions. I've got your point, however misguided you may be in raising it; unless you have something useful (or god-forbid pleasant) to add, I suggest that any further discussion of the issue is unnecessary. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel something I've written is inappropriate. Like always, make some indication of what concerns you and I'll remove or refactor it.

As for your response above, I suggest you either remove it or take this to WP:WQA or a similar forum. Please note:

You made a revert without an explanation in the edit summary.

20 minutes later you misrepresented the revert in the article talk page, and haven't responded to any of the discussion there.

With no further discussion from you, you then make this edit [15], where the edit summary has no relationship to the edit, and appears to violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF.

You follow that edit with [16], at which point I start this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

ah, ok. I see the problem. I hit the wrong button when I reverted SA's revert and sent it without an edit summary. I had thought that I'd followed up with a null edit that gave an appropriate edit summary, but I guess I did it wrong. my bad - I got annoyed with you because I was sure that I'd left an edit summary and I couldn't understand why you kept saying I didn't, but now I can see what's up.

in the future, please do not accuse me of edit-warring unless I really am (one revert, even without an edit summary, is not an edit war). in fact, I would prefer it if you simply asked me what happened in a given case, rather than going straight for an accusation. I don't mind being called on it when and if I step over the line, and you'll find that I'm usually apologetic if I do, but if you accuse me of something without real cause I'm just going to assume that you're making the accusation in bad faith (which is what happened with that edit you noted above), and that will invariably be ugly. I am frankly tired of being accused of crap by a handful of editors I won't bother to name, and I have zero inclination to put up with it. I will do my best to be extra-civil in this conversation from now on, but please note that I would like that extra-civility returned. would that be acceptable? --Ludwigs2 00:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll avoid mentioning "edit warring." Good point.

I'm still waiting for you to refactor.

What is this: [17]? --Ronz (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

as you please. and that was just me joking around with SA. --Ludwigs2 20:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of the lede

The field of religion and science is pretty well established. Your rewrite is un-characteristic of the literature. For example, using the idea of conflict thesis suggests that you don't understand the basic issues. For the conflict thesis has been shown to be quite false, historians today use it as an example of problematic scholarship. To say that that it characterizes the relationship between science and religion is honestly quite naive. The rest of it seems much worse than what was there before in terms of understandibility for new readers and in acurately representing the majority of introductions on this topic. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

<shrug> I wasn't exactly advocating the conflict thesis, merely pointing out that there are differing ontological assertions that do on occasion conflict. but shouldn't we be having this discussion on the talk page? no worries, I'm quite agreeable to change, so let's figure out what works best. --Ludwigs2 23:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism etc

Please remove your personal attacks from the tag teaming page ASAP. Yours, Verbal chat 08:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside from one unfortunate insinuation (which I will happily remove) I don't see anything that is incorrect or inappropriate. you'll have to be more specific if there's something else you want done. --Ludwigs2 21:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There is still the accusation of vandalism and your failing to assume good faith. Remove the whole post and rephrase if you have to. Verbal chat 21:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

as I said on the talk page, that was not an accusation. that was a caution, because I thought your post was over the top. trust me, if I thought you were a vandal I wouldn't have bothered leaving you a talk page note about it; I'd have reported you to the admins and let them deal with it. --Ludwigs2 22:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Minority and majority

You might be interested in this. I guess it's a mistake? It's been prodded but probably classes as speedy. Best, Verbal chat 07:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been dealt with. Verbal chat 07:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

lol - that was speedy, but thanks for the heads up. and a belated apology for my previous grumpiness. wikipedia gets under my skin sometimes, and it usually takes me a while before I recover my normal good humor. hopefully this will pass with more experience... --Ludwigs2 21:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Verbal chat 22:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

You've been included in a case at the Mediation Cabal, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science. Feel free to put your two cents in. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks. I've added a comment. let me know if there's anything I can do to help resolve this. --Ludwigs2 01:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Snarky nonsense

This comment was uncalled for: "if consensus-editing bores you, Orange, then maybe you should take a wikibreak". How about, If following the policies of WP is so onerous for you, Ludwigs, why not find another site that will be more appreciative of your unique talents. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I'll take that under consideration. In the meantime, perhaps you could suggest to Orange that if he doesn't like sarcastic comments, he could (a) tell me directly, rather than enlisting a friend, or (b) stop using sarcasm himself. I mean, what did you expect me to say when he complained about being bored by me?

I swear, you guys are too funny... --Ludwigs2 21:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your constant personal attacks have not gone unnoticed. I'm asking that you be blocked again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you for the notice. --Ludwigs2 23:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

errrr... would you mind telling me where you are making this request (so that I have the opportunity to discuss it) or are you going to do it off-wiki so it's a done deal? --Ludwigs2 23:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

!ding!

You've got mail! ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

!ding! ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a concern

Your edit summaries [18] and [19] make it sound as if User:Orangemarlin made the edits instead. That's a typo right? --Firefly322 (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

editing is a generic term, that covers all changes to an article. even reverts are edits. plus, the 'good-faith edit' thing is prepackaged comment (I reverted using twinkle). no worries, it will be clear to anyone who reads what's happening. --Ludwigs2 01:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Note

Ludwigs2, hi, I realize how much fun that you're having, especially with people that are easy to bait. However, some of your posts are getting way far afield from the actual topic of the talkpage (meaning, the related article/essay). So, could I ask you to please ratchet things back a notch, rather than engaging in a battle of wits with the, well, you know? :) For best results, try to ensure that each one of your posts has at least something to do with an improvement of the related page. Thanks, --Elonka 18:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

actually, I'm not having fun (I was getting a bit hot under the collar myself, and I hate that feeling). I'm done with that thread entirely, and with the page as a whole for a few days. no worries. --Ludwigs2 20:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, you may find it therapeutic to go back and refactor or even delete any posts of yours which were focused on editor conduct as opposed to article content. This also has an excellent effect both in that it can de-escalate the dispute, and it makes someone look remarkably mature to show that they can go back and reconsider words said in the heat of the moment. Up to you though!  :) --Elonka 00:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

need a cool-down day or so before I even consider that. at the moment, I don't think anything I wrote was incorrect, and I'm just as likely to compound issues as improve them. best I leave well enough alone. if you or someone else feels a need to remove the discussion, however, I certainly won't object. --Ludwigs2 00:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Despite twice reverting a guideline tag today, you have the cheek to suggest that it is me that must be prevented from edit warring. Check the history of that guideline. I have never edit warred there and have no intention of edit warring. It is not my style. You owe me an apology. Colin°^Talk 22:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, I apologize. I'm not here to fight with you, Colin, but I would like a bit more thought put into this change before it's elevated to guideline status. the move is premature. --Ludwigs2 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Colin°^Talk 22:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Template frames

Hi, is there anyway you can undo your addition to the frames? See how the template used to have no blue frames around the picture, compared to the changes made recently. Now every article that uses the template (couple thousands) have a frame. Also it makes the picture bigger than it is. Benjwong (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I had to revert to the sept 10 edit. You might want to try a sandbox edit before you put that change back in. Benjwong (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the difference btw. Benjwong (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

you reverted the whole change because of the blue frame? I actually kind of liked the blue frame, personally... at any rate, that's easy to fix if that's the only problem. what other issues do you have before I fix and redo? --Ludwigs2 03:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

made the changes (alittle CSS tweaking is all) and added samples on your page above. tell me if that works for you... --Ludwigs2 04:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

poke

Question for you at Wikipedia:Consensus ? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I responded, but I'm not sure how much more attention I want to give it. I'm getting disgusted by the wikipedia process. --Ludwigs2 05:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring in Quackwatch

Please do not simply revert edits. Instead, please make a clear corresponding comment on the talk page discussing your reasoning. Given your edit history, you should know better at this point. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

given your edit history, this is beginning to look like stalking. if I ever want advice from you, I will ask. in the meantime, please cease and desist from leaving meaningless and threatening notes on my talk page.

I have blocked you account for edit warring and disruptive editing. Four reverts on Quackwatch within a short period and all marked as minor. Also, I note the above rather incivil response to another user who was simply calling this to your attention. Please be civil and refrain from edit warring on disputed articles. Note the warning at the top of Talk:Quackwatch. Good day, Vsmith (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ludwigs2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm sorry - I don't know why those edits got marked as minor - that's got to be a twinkle setting that I am unfamiliar with. I'll fix it if I can figure out how (and I won't use the Twinkle undo feature until I do), but it ought to be apparent from my edit summaries that I wasn't intending to make minor edits. further, at least one of those edits was by consensus on the talk page, and the others were all designed to remove a long-term contentious phrase from being added to a reference about a living person. I'll admit I was rude to Ronz, above, but that's just because I don't really want him leaving messages on my talk page. there is too much negative history there to make his advice meaningful. If you think I need to be blocked for rudeness, that's fine, because I admit (for reasons of personal stress) that I have had a short temper lately. but if that's the case, I'd ask you to change the stated reasons to reflect the actual cause. I don't want to be blocked for something that I'm really not guilty of.

Decline reason:

The real issue here is not the fact that you checked the "minor edit" box when making reverts (and by the way, that can be disabled in your preferences). The issue is that you engaged in yet another edit war. Also, judging by your block log you clearly have not learned from your previous blocks an prior unblocks only resulted in more edit waring. for this reason your request is denied. — Tiptoety ^talk 05:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have contacted the blocking admin to get his opinion on lifting your block early. Please await his response. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What does it matter if they're marked minor? This was edit warring, and Ludwigs should remained blocked. In fact, with his/her history of blocks, shouldn't this be lengthened to an appropriate length? Maybe one month? Ludwigs' continued edit-warring across all types of articles and policy pages should be a priori evidence for a very long block, if not an indefinite block. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a close look at his block log, promises resulted in a block lift before - so I'm a bit skeptical of that. As for twinkle, I know nothing of how it works or what the problem may have been. However, he was aware of a problem and had previously apologized for marking changes as minor. The incivil edit summary here in which he castigates a user for marking a truly minor comma removal as a minor edit while marking his revert as minor was totally uncalled for. See User_talk:ElKevbo#Quackwatch. He was well aware of the past editing problems on quackwatch and yet chose to edit war there. Now, if admin consensus is to shorten or lift the block - then ok, but I don't feel that would send the right message here. Vsmith (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement that Ludwigs2 was making excessive use of the "revert" button at the Quackwatch article. It would have been better to try and find a compromise. That said, however, I would like to propose that a block may be more than is needed here, and there may be a better-crafted solution. Ludwigs2 has done good work on other articles, and it just seems to be the Quackwatch article that is the current flashpoint. The article is within the scope of an arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. As such, any uninvolved administrator has the authority to impose bans here, as well as blocks. What I would recommend, is that Ludwigs2 be banned for one week from editing the Quackwatch article. That way he could still participate at the talkpage, and continue to edit other articles in the meantime. What do other admins think? --Elonka 06:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support that. Tiptoety ^talk 15:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If the "excessive" reverts were the only issue, I would agree. However, considering the block history, the apparent misuse of twinkle after he was aware of a problem, and the incivil comments pointed out above all seem to be a bit more serious and need broader remedies. Vsmith (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I agree with Vsmith. The edit wars and the uncivil comments seem to me to be spread out more lately. I would suggest to Ludwig2 to not take things so serious as to get himself upset by so many like he has at Quackwatch, WP:Tag teams and so forth. He has gotten angry with a few editors lately and needs to remember to talk about the edits not the editors. When I allow myself to get upset with others I take a break and go somewhere else to work or just take a break from the project completely until I calm down. I think this has worked well for me to remain civil with others. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Please allow me to be frank. the only reason I got involved on the QuackWatch article in the first place (however many months ago that was) was as part of an RfC (or 3O, I forget which) around a dreadful bias in the article. I have absolutely no interest in the topic aside from that, and my only continuing interest in the article is in trying to maintain some kind of NPOV perspective. I am perfectly happy to cease editing the article - thus allowing it to return to its previous biased state - if that is what the community prefers. ask, and I'll take it off my watchlist and move on; NPOV seems impossible on this article anyway. my only mistake here (and it's not really a mistake, but a side-effect of other more serious stresses in my life) was in allowing myself to be baited into being more aggressive than I should have been. I may not like that, but that's the way it is.

Anyone who looks through my edit history will see that I am reasonable, communicative, productive, and unfailingly polite anywhere that I'm given half a chance to be, and I only get irritable where I'm not given the chance to be otherwise. I like to talk things out, for heaven's sake, and I always prefer a consensus solution. I admit, I'm smart and stubborn, and it gets under my skin when I run across those (few) editors who would rather play power politics than actually try to work things out (because that strikes me as the height of stupidity for someone editing an encyclopedia). usually I'm capable of coping, but sometimes I slip. If you want to fault me for that, I guess I can't object, but it seems to me that you'd do better to encourage the previous behavior than try to punish the slips. but... <shrug> either way, CrohnieGal's suggestion of a break from contentious pages is probably good advice; I wasn't making any headway there anyway (even before I got annoyed). --Ludwigs2 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked per admin consensus (see my talk) and it seems a week was a bit of overdo. Please remain civil and avoid the stresses that brought this on. I would reccommend avoiding the quackwatch page for awhile, although I won't impose an edit ban as was suggested by other admins. When wiki-stress gets too high - find some non-controversial page that needs improving and go to work. Good luck, Vsmith (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, Ludwigs, if I can help at all when you are feeling stressed out with anything please don't hesitate to contact me. I'd be more than happy to help out if I can even if it just you come to me to vent, which can be done here or my email is activated. I know sometimes it helps to be able to vent to someone in private and I promise if you do it would remain private, I would not divulge anything to anyone that you said off line to me. Just remember that we are here to make the project better but as important as this, we should be enjoying what we do, we are volunteers! Take care and good luck and 'happy' editing! --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

well, ok. in order to satisfy both my own concerns and Vsmith's, I'm going to open an RfC on quackwatch for the particular problem that caused this mess, state my case there, and then leave the page for a couple of weeks and let other people resolve the issue. as I said, I really don't care about the topic itself, except that the article seems to me to have a distinct bias, and some of the moves that get made there strike me as (err...) unfortunate... I trust the broader community will resolve the issue properly, and more effectively than I can.

ChronieGal, thanks for the offer, and expect me to take you up on it. heaven knows there are times I could seriously use a jolt of common sense and clear perspective. --Ludwigs2 02:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Anytime sweetie, and by the way, your comments made me smile. Very good post with some light hearted comments to boot!  :) Happy editing! --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am confused

I do not understand your removal of three references I recently added to the article. If you don't mind, can I revert your edit. What is your objection to the references and text I added. Thanks. QuackGuru 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.--Elonka 04:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: keyboard problems

The problem has solved itself, which I now believe was caused by me pressing the shift key for too long, accidentally activating the StickyKeys, so thank you for taking the time out to offer me some good suggestions. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

my pleasure - I hate it when things like that happen top me. --Ludwigs2 04:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Warning

Hello, you may have not noticed, but I'm an established user here. Second of all, the link I added was a reversion to a previous version, and does in fact comply with our guidelines and policies. Please read WP:USER.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 07:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry, my mistake - on quick inspection it looked like a spam link, but I see now it wasn't. my bad. --Ludwigs2 07:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "sigh"

I consider that if you're "extremely unlikely to respond in a way expected", you're threatening to either edit disruptively or create even more heat than light or use Wikipedia as a battleground or something along those lines - please don't. More than one user has criticized your approach and the problems it can cause (even if it was blunt, it was civil - not disparaging). I hope you take such criticisms constructively in the future. The situation in the WQA was over, which was why it was closed (as another dispute should be in another WQA, if it warrants it). Anyhow, I'm willing to assume good faith and think that we've both miscommunicated with each other. I'm sorry for anything I said that offended you and I hope we can move on. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

my apologies if I come off snippy. the real problem I have on wikipedia (if I may be honest) is that I'm indifferent to authority of any kind, and tend to talk back when people try to pull rank on me. that is often interpreted by others as being a lot more challenging and aggressive than I actually mean to be, which in turn tends to make people defensive, and mad. I get the feeling that there are a number of long-term editors here who would dearly love to tell me that I'm just a newbie who doesn't know his place, and they are probably correct - I don't know my place, and I probably never will; I don't ever think in those terms at all.

but don't worry, I do take criticism well (though not always in the way people want me to), and I never make threats or aim to disrupt or any of that silly crap. life's too long to let that stuff get in your head. mainly my mouth (err... fingers) just get ahead of my brain sometimes, and something I meant to say dispassionately comes out with more bite than I might have liked. my apologies if that's the case here; I meant no harm and no insult.

sooner or later I'm going to have to work out the kinks I have with Dave and a small cadre of other editors here who've taken a dislike to me (Dave's a maybe, though a couple of others I fear are lost causes...), but you're correct: that was neither the correct time nor the correct place to do it. I'll keep working on curbing my more snappy instincts. --Ludwigs2 05:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's one of the disadvantages of relying on typing text alone without hearing or seeing how a person said what they said - but it's okay, and I'm glad we sorted it out quickly. ;) And always remember, just because you and dave weren't right on this occasion, doesn't mean that you haven't been in the past, or won't be in the future. All of us make mistakes and it's okay - it's part of gaining experience. What counts is how often we make them, how we learn from them, what we do to avoid making them in the future. :) Take care, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Henotheism Talk

Dear friend Lugwigs2, I'd like to remind you as well about the three-revert rule which prohibits making more than three reversions. I've provided reference links while making corrections in good faith. Please care to check them first before engaging in rvs. I've also posted a detailed response on the talk page. Hope we can work together. Take care. ADvaitaFan (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Adviata, I was going to refrain, but this note you've left here makes me think you're trying to game the system rather than trying to edit sincerely, so instead I'm considering actually reporting you for edit warring. if you cannot find it in your heart to participate fairly and decently on wikipedia, then I don't know what to tell you, and I don't know why you're bothering. I'll point out, however, that it's a lot easier to get what you want by working with other editors than by trying to run roughshod over them. --Ludwigs2 03:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

He gave Ism Schism a 3RR warning (with heading) after 1 rv. Count his! Doug Weller (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

sigh...

Point

This edit has been called to my attention. Such "null" edits seem only designed to irritate or provoke a response form other editors. As such this type of editing is in violation of WP:POINT and is disruptive. Please refrain from such disruptive edits in the future. State your concerns regarding content on the talk page and avoid making personal comments to or about your fellow editors during discussions. Vsmith (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

your point is taken, and I'll refrain in the future. however, this does leave me with a fundamental problem (and what honestly strikes me as a bit of a double-standard) which maybe you can advise me on. there are a handful of editors I consistently run across - whom I will refrain from identifying for the moment - who primarily communicate through reverts and edit summaries. they will literally revert any edit they object to with a minimal edit summary, refuse to discuss the edit on the talk page, and then complain if their reverts are reverted. while I don't mind my edits being reverted per se, it's very difficult to make any progress on a page at all when confronted with that behavior. how do you suggest I deal with it in the future? --Ludwigs2 02:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Start a thread on the talkpage anyway. If they ignore it, post to their talkpages and specifically invite them to the discussion at the article talkpage. Be polite, spell it out, give them a specific link to the thread. They'll usually stop by at that point. Because remember, if someone isn't participating at talk, then those who do participate have the right to change the article and say, "changing per talkpage consensus." Decisions are made by those that show up. If they come to the talkpage, but you can't find a way through the dispute, file an article RfC, and/or post at a relevant noticeboard. If that doesn't bring closure, request mediation. --Elonka 23:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Your arrogance is beyond belief

This comment is beyond civil. You obviously think you're smarter than the rest of us. it's time to have you blocked indefinitely. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

errr... I deserve to be blocked indefinitely for asking you to provide a source? Orange - please... can we get some personal mediation, because I really don't deserve this kind of treatment. --Ludwigs2 00:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. A source that every scientist thinks Psychic is bullshit? Can't prove a negative, but you know that.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

first off, that's a positive, not a negative (i.e. 'shows every scientist does think...'). and I'd even settle for a decent source that says 'most scientists', or the 'general consensus among scientists', or something like that. you and I both know that skeptics of a certain type make claims like this all the time, but not all scientists are that type of skeptic, and not all skeptics of that type are scientists. or am I wrong?

again, I think that personal issues between you and me are bleeding over into article space, and I would like to resolve them, or at least find some way of setting them aside for the purposes of editing. how can we accomplish that? --Ludwigs2 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Another arrogant edit

You say, the previous version of psychic has "pronounced bias". I cry foul for two reasons:

1. You did not take your edit to talk.
2. You did not explain what is biased about them.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was waiting for the IP to open a talk page section, where I'm sure it will be discussed. he's only had maybe five minutes to do so, so I wasn't too worried that it hasn't happened yet. however, if you'd like to do that on his behalf, I'm more than willing to join you. --Ludwigs2 22:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that the IP is ScienceApologist,[20] which would be a violation of SA's restrictions. --Elonka 22:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I considered that possibility, but I'm trying to develop a more congenial working relationship with him and Orange. if it's true, it was a weak gambit, and if it's false... for the time being, I'm going wp:AGF with it. --Ludwigs2 23:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You're partnering with Elonka. Cool. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka has earned my respect as an admin; and yes, that is cool. thanks. --Ludwigs2 05:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You were mentioned...

Here: [21] Thought you should know... :) --Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

oh heavens! thanks. I can't even think of a response to that, though. makes my head spin... --Ludwigs2 04:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked him for a week. His talk page responses were too much. If you have any opinions, please discuss at WP:ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Psychic

I can live with "skeptics say", given the other phrasing changes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen what's happened since I made that edit, but I was satisfied with the changes made prior to that. they seemed fair and accurate. I can't speak for anyone else, of course. I may want to change the whole 'oracle of delphi' passage (see the talk page, where I've been discussing it with Olive), but that has nothing to do with any recent edits. --Ludwigs2 23:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yo, no more reverts at Psychic please, I'd like to see if we can get the article to stabilize. You are welcome to continue editing, but please stay away from the "Revert" button for awhile? Thanks, --Elonka 22:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

sorry, will do. --Ludwigs2 22:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad form on my part on not signing .... I think I'm normally good about that, and I don't have a good excuse. I plain forgot.

Thank you for the clarification. Your response to me illuminates your position clearly (at least to me). I wish you good luck in editing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please keep talk page edits civil and focus on content - not other users

This edit was quite unneeded and can be viewed as incivil and a personal atttack. The sigh and painting another users viewpoint as religious beliefs in such a negative context is a personal attack. I am asking you to either remove or severely refactor the remark and apologise to User:Orangemarlin for the comment. Such characterizations have no place on an article talk page. Vsmith (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem removing that, if you like (I'll go do that), but I'm a little surprised that it got taken that way. I'm actually exceedingly pro-faith, and (the sigh aside) I wouldn't have taken that kind of comment negatively at all, had it been directed at me. I just happen to think our beliefs have to be curbed a bit while editing. but... oh well, no problem. . --Ludwigs2 01:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(p.s.) should I strike out the later comment as well (the one beginning with as I said, we can engage...)? --Ludwigs2 01:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The key thing to look for, is any post which seems to make comments about a contributor, as opposed to focusing on the article. As soon as a comment veers towards assumptions about what someone else does or doesn't think or believe, it's edging over the line. It's not just that it violates policy, but the reason for the policy is that as soon as a user believes that a post is directed at them instead of the article, it can cause an immediate defensive reaction, and WP:MASTODON behavior may result. So, a useful habit to get into, is to try and always write in the third-person, and avoid using anyone's name. Eliminating the words "you" and "your" from posts and edit summaries is a very simple and effective way to de-escalate disputes. Even going back and rewriting posts to get rid of those words (granted, it can be intellectually challenging to do so!) can be very helpful at lowering the temperature on the talkpage. --Elonka 04:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

that sounds eminently reasonable. ok, I'll put some effort into that, thanks. --Ludwigs2 04:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Orgone

Um, where do they actually state some objections? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

they don't, that's the problem. it's just a free-floating tag with no purpose or explanation that I can see. mostly I think they do it as a form of harassment (trying to get my goat, as it were), but they don't seem to have figured out yet that yes, in fact, I do learn from my mistakes. c'est la vie. --Ludwigs2 04:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Another uncivil comment I guess. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

again, if you think that's true, I'm happy to enter into some form of mediation. please let me know when and where. --Ludwigs2 18:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

The first part of this edit is blatantly incivil rudeness, and is part of an increasingly disruptive pattern of incivility where you appear to be trying to taunt other editors rather than cooperating in a courteous way. The second part which you forgot to sign is constructive, so I've removed the first remark and moved your signature to the second part. Please remember that intelligent design relates to pseudoscience, and this applies. . . dave souza, talk 21:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I appreciate it. you might give a similar warning to Orangemarlin, who seems not to be making any constructive comments at all. --Ludwigs2 21:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tu quoque is not a valid defense. In addition, nothing OM has written approached "go play somewhere else". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification, Jim (though you haven't seen the extensive history of comments that OM has made to me). I'll save all that for a future ANI, though. in the meantime, I'll take your point as given. --Ludwigs2 21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI is really only for posting something which needs the attention of an administrator, when you haven't been able to get the attention of an administrator via other means. You are also supposed to try other mechanisms first, such as to do as Dave souza did, posting a diff or two on someone's talkpage and saying, "I don't think this was helpful." Or in other words, if you have diffs of concern, please provide them. --Elonka 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

look, Elonka. I've tried every means I know of (including repeated requests for mediation) to get Orangemarlin to treat me with a modicum of civility. I'm over it. if he continues harassing me (like this and this), the next move I'm going to make is to dump the very long list of insults that he's thrown at me into ANI, and leave the admins to deal with it. I'm sorry... while I can overlook the insults on a case by case basis (most of the time) the fact that he's made it clear several times that he doesn't want to resolve his issue with me means that either (a) he has to control his dislike of me on his own and behave civilly regardless, or (b) some admin has to control it for him. otherwise every discussion I have in his presence him is going to be pure poison, forever, and that just sucks for everyone involved.

I am more than willing to let bygones be bygones, and I'll keep trying to create a civil relationship with him, but I see no reason to put up with this eternally. If you have a better suggestion for resolving this, I'm all ears; but one way or another this needs to get resolved. --Ludwigs2 22:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, ANI is for getting the attention of an admin. Right now, you already have the attention of some admins. Like, um me :) So rather than going to the trouble of an ANI thread, which tends to just turn into a drama-fest anyway, a more focused way of handling things is to just lay out the evidence that you've got now, like here on your talkpage. As for the diffs you provided, I agree that those comments were unhelpful, and I have placed a note on Orangemarlin's talkpage about it. I'm willing to follow up, too. But at the same time as I'm looking at his edits, I'm looking at yours too, and your act isn't entirely clean here. I share Dave souza's concern about your "run along and play somewhere else" comment.[22] It was helpful neither to the article, nor to yourself. Honestly, what good do you think it might have possibly done? Do you think it increased your status in the eyes of other editors? Nope. Will it make other people treat you better? Doubtful. Did it improve the discussion at the talkpage? Not that I could see. Did it make other editors laugh? Nope. The only benefit that that comment might have provided, is one for you, in that perhaps it made you feel a bit better to "vent" at someone else. Which is fine for you, but bad for everyone else around you. So if you want my advice, here it is: Never respond to incivility with incivility. Instead, stay civil, keep your own act clean, and that'll both keep the discussion more positive, and also make administrators' jobs much much much easier. Thanks, --Elonka 23:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

yes, you're absolutely right, and I apologize for my temper. I'm not used to this constant barrage of insults, and it really gets under my skin after a bit (which is odd for me - I don't usually have a problem with things like this). but that's not an excuse. I'll put myself on best behavior, as best I can. If you think it will help, I'll make a user subpage with the list of problematic diffs (which is a better way of venting than sniping at him, I suppose). I'd been planning on making an offline list anyway, for future use - though I'm having to write a bot for it, because there's so many diffs to sift through - I could just as easily make it a public list. up to you which you think is better. --Ludwigs2 23:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If you create a subpage which is just a list of diffs, and without any side commentary, that should be fine. It's important to be careful to avoid any hint that something might be an attack page. But a straight list of diffs is usually fine. --Elonka 01:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I will consider it an attack page. I'm also referring this statement to others. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Just checking, has everyone here read WP:BAIT? --Elonka 02:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka - just to be sure, I read it again now. thanks.

OM - I'm sorry you feel that way. If you'd prefer, let me say (again) that I'm happy to try to resolve this personal issue through whatever means you find comfortable, which would obviate the need for any such page. if not... then please do refer this on to others so that they can read it as well. --Ludwigs2 04:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)