User talk:Quiddity/Archive 4

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Wikipedia:Department directory

Would you please have a look at the top line of this page? I can't seem to position "Help:Contents" correctly next to the left arrow icon. I'd appreciate it. Thank you. The Transhumanist 02:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

S'all templates ;) --Quiddity 02:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Question

I thought I should come here to say that I appreciate our reasoned discussion, and hope that any disagreement doesn't lead you to think otherwise. :-)

There was something about your comment here that confused me, but it doesn't have to do with the policy discussion at hand there, so I didn't want to clutter that page. You said "But if you restrict your aim to lists of words, and dubious ones at that, like Glossary of sexual slurs and List of online-gaming slang and List of Chicano Caló words and expressions and Australian rhyming slang; then go right ahead." I think this indicates that we agree that word lists and slang guides are certainly a different category from glossaries, and are dictionary territory (and indeed, that current policy governs them). This also indicates, as seems clear to me, that you believe that the "Glossary of sexual slurs" is really a list of words inappropriately named. Can I ask you why you then supported keeping it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of sexual slurs. I expected this reasoning to lead to an endorsement of deletion. Dmcdevit·t 05:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely :) Plus you're admin/arb-com, so I'd be silly to assume bad faith/intentions.

That support was written earlier, I'll amend it now to a delete/rename endorsement. --Quiddity 06:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ack! No preferential treatment either, please. :-) But thank you for your reconsideration. Dmcdevit·t 06:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I'd assume you were right! Just not malicious or willfully-ignorant. ;) --Quiddity 07:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I guess. Same to you. :) Dmcdevit·t 17:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

New Christianity Template

I have created a new merger template, per the request, to replace both the Christianity and Christian Theology templates. I noticed your interest in the template. I would appreciate your comments. Please place comments on the template discussion page, so others can read them. Thanks. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just curious. Why is the sidebar so difficult to update, technically speaking? And don't say it's because you can't get to it! ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 18:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is difficult to update. Presumably just ask at MediaWiki talk:Sidebar. :) --Quiddity 19:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe I don't understand what's going on (duh!). What do think it's going to take at this point to update the sidebar? Rfrisbie^talk 19:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I thought maybe you meant to change "featured articles" to "featured content" ASAP.

The actual redesign is being coordinated from Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/programming. See the bugzilla link at the bottom. And I just asked gatoatigrado if there was anything I/we could do to help. :) --Quiddity 19:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll just sit tight. I've already gone over my quota of pissing off people this week! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I filed a bugzilla report and Brion Vibber is taking a long time to get to it, but he's right, it's an enhancement, and not a critical bug. So right now, I think we just wait. Hozau and I did the programming. You can go to the programming talk page if you want. --gatoatigrado 21:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

perhaps you can email vibber and inform him of the number of people involved in the project, and ask him nicely if he would move it along? --gatoatigrado 02:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Quantum portals!

Check this out! :-) Rfrisbie^talk 16:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yearless Tip of the day

Hi, Quiddity. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day/Yearless. I set up a "yearless" version of the tips pages so they have a chance of continuing a bit longer. I also set up the test page to help ferret out any problems. When they're ready, the changeover can take place with some simple edits to the display templates. Please add your comments to the bottom of the test page. Thanks. Rfrisbie^talk 23:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What? Nothing to say?!!! ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 02:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really my thing. Nothing is broken though :) --Quiddity 03:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Browser check help needed

Hi, Quiddity. I need your help again. Someone told me the selected picture at Portal:Cats is too big and screws up the display using Firefox. [1] Could you take a look and suggest a ballpark size for the pic? Thanks, Rfrisbie^talk 04:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cats Template

Thanks for having worked on the template for the Cats wikiproject. I just wonder why you removed the criteria for importance assessment. The template was specifically designed so that those criteria wouldn't appear in the template itself, but would still automatically place the article in the correct importance category. Only about 20 or so articles have to date been assessed for importance, but they can all be found in the various categorys. Given the fact that different articles would be of different importance levels to different projects, I thought we would not want to make too big of a deal of the individual article's importance to this particular project. Thank you in advance for your response. Badbilltucker 16:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Howdy. I only removed the "|importance=" line from the 'usage' guide (not from the code) because it didn't seem to work (I was using {{WikiProject Color}} as a guide). Now that I know it wasn't meant to appear in the template by design, I'll add the bit back. :) -Quiddity 19:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Improvements to the Psychology portal

Hi, I'm working on trying to get Portal:Psychology up to Featured portal status. Any tips you can offer on how to improve it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbie^talk 16:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Main page link proposal

To wrap up this issue, I've posted the following message to David Levy:

User talk:David Levy#Consensus on Main Page links -The Transhumanist 03:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar redesign and logo

Are the sidebar redesign and fixed logo without the white fringe going to be implemented? —Centrx→talk • 02:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. Waiting for devs to review the patch code, i think (per). I've sent a query into the ether, might know more in a few days ;) -Quiddity 03:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this was 2 months ago and Brion was not pleased by the naivete of the submitter? —Centrx→talk • 09:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I talked to a developer online, who wants to implement functionality in MediaWiki:Sidebar so that the location of the Search bar can be specified there. After that, we could implement the change through MediaWiki:Sidebar. The new logo image has issues with backward compatibility for older versions of Internet Explorer. We could create a new image that is anti-aliased while using the current Wikipedia background image. This is not the perfect solution, but the border that is currently white would cleanly blend in with the background. —Centrx→talk • 05:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If you know what needs to be done, go to it, or poke the relevant persons. :) --Quiddity 06:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:Adopt

Please see talk at Help talk:Contents thanks Lethaniol 18:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL - help pages

Hey don't worry about it. I am sure nobody would let you go running amok on such important pages and pressing all your own POV. I know what it is like always editing one page or talk page, you feel that you have to do it, but your always worried about what people will think. Your cool with me - although I still want the link :):):) Cheers Lethaniol 19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Howdy stranger

I altered the template wording... how's this now? Makes better sense. N'est pas? Best! // FrankB 20:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure :) -Quiddity 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

title template

Hi. Since you didn't explain why you were changing {{lowercase}} usage in articles like eBay, I've reverted your changes. It's generally best to use edit summaries and talk pages when making such changes. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually you should always use edit summaries, even if its only a word or two! Please and thanks :) --Quiddity 00:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No I will never use edit summaries, and if you have a problem with that you could ban me, see if I care. --Ambarawa 16:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I couldn't ban you, even if I wanted to, which I don't. It was just a friendly note, asking you to leave a 2 word edit summary, to help out all editors. I don't understand why it has made you grumpy. --Quiddity 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oooh oooh I'm so scared. He's an admin and he's gonna ban me. Ooooh help me please! --Ambarawa 21:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep mentioning bans, or why you put those tags on your own userpage. It's very strange. Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith :) -Quiddity 22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize from the bottom of my heart for my actions, I totally regret my mistakes and promise never to do it again... NOT!!! --Ambarawa 23:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Q—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 05:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:ELAC

Hi, it looks like you have good "box/header" know-how. Would you be interested in joining or participating in our group, the WP:Extra-Long Article Committee, so to give us ideas and suggestions in this direction? Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 15:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Blanket fort

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Blanket fort, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Blanket fort. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. TheRingess 06:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There are reasons why some wander Wikipedia at night. A find like Blanket fort is one. This article hits the ohmigod button—keep keep keep keep KEEP!!!!! Athænara ✉ 13:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad Idea?

I could use an assist (maybe two). I have a pet peeve, and thought I'd come up with a good concept for making chides to editors who leave incomplete documentation trails by creating sort of a wet diaper award. It seems to be drawing some adverse reactions, and even before I'd spammed a request to some others like this for brainstorming on how to shorten same and evolve it, as I'm not happy with it either. Subsequently, it's already drawn fire (here) before I could ask in help and get suggestions. Can you take a look and comment here. There has to be some way to let people know 'shallow edit actions' that reflect poorly on our pages need a talk note justification, no exceptions, thankyou. Much appreciated // FrankB 22:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal tips

I have done a lot of extensive work (and so has Rfrisbie) to Portal:Business and Economics. I would like to bring it to Featured Portal status and I am seeking your opinion! Please leave your suggestions at the the Portal talk:Business and Economics about how to get this portal to featured status. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Nishkid 64 04:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal review volunteers

Hi, based on your previous good deeds, please consider becoming one of the portal review volunteers and adding your name to the list. :-) Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 18:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Lists of Works

Hi Quiddity - sorry for the long delay in replying...

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) is looking good to me - nice work! While I value freedom of presentation here, I do believe we should have a standard method of presenting filmographies (etc.) and that page gives excellent guidelines. I'd try and help to support it further but am still rather absent right now.

Regards, violet/riga (t) 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Fabartus/Wet noodle award

re: Just a tip, but for finding the source of template tags, I'd suggest only checking every 10th or 20th or 50th diff, instead of going through them one by one. Once you find a diff without the tag, reverse direction and find where it was added. -Quiddity 04:45, 16 December 2006

Tis is teaching grandpa how to spit, the problem is the tags which are in place way back. Non-the-less, no one should need go back ten edits, much less 143 edits to find such... if one obeys the implicit instruction on most of these to comment on the talk. Hence I have some hopes we can evolve the culture a bit towards that more professional mode. Suggest some words, and later we can propose them on the talk of that User templates link you turned up. Cheers! // FrankB 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The obvious is only obvious once you know it, was mentioning just in case :) I'll try to add a suggestion or two later. —Quiddity 03:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming

I just look at the Recent Changes page, often without looking at edits. That plus WP:AGF. If we don't AGF, we validate why they do what they do. Just H 21:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. (I'm just morning-grumpy, and having to revert and report this particular fool ;) —Quiddity 21:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Need a name or such

I stubbed together a couple of informational and display ?Essays, ?Demonstrations, ?________ pages... whatever... Wikipedia:Neutrality_templates, and Wikipedia:Dispute templates due to a double dose of reverting editors, so I can point to inline templates as better ways to handle disputed lines, paragraphs, etc.
So what the heck are such called? Seems like a logical extension of 'main article' tagging on cats, so I cross tagged the categories...

So what do I call these non-guidelines, non-policies, non-project, non-essay samplings of available choices. Menu pages!?? HAH!
Being an organizing guru of sorts, I figure you're a good resource to ask. While you ponder that, have a happy new year! Thanks // FrankB 04:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm... ~~WP:NT~~ Darn--used already!' <g> and WP:DT (good, arguably the more important one to cite) Cheers! // FrankB

Ludvikus

The Essence of a Book

Just kidding.

I think you are unaware of the extent to which User:Dicklyon is dedicated to maintaining the arts and crafts, and design aspects of his Book design article. I'm not at all interested in that aspect of the matter at hand.

So I've taken your wonderful suggestion and renamed the other article book structure - because that is the aspect that interests me - and I hope to work on it.

Why don't you join me on it - and let the other article evolve into the design aspect?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Chucklepants

What's that? I found you described as such by User:Ben S. Nelson

who started the Philosophy page in 2004. So your really pissed him off.

Having studied philosophy, as you claim, you could contribute significantly.

But be worned - the topic is highly controversial - I know, as I'm the ultimate subject of crucification. I suggested hemlock, as more befitting - but they obviously think I'm no Socrates!

The most pressing issue is rationality as a quiddity of philosophy.

I'm afraid your're probably for it - even though you're already the subject of an ad hominum.

I never heard that before, but I can at least imagine what it is - a rational attack on you?

But you did through gasoline into the fire - right in the face of the leader of the gang!

It would be useful if to confine yourself to a very specific issue being considered.

A generality as to the overall inadequacy is not at useful.

Another issue is the role of the West.

Good luck, --Ludvikus 06:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh he's fine! Too silly to be rude. :) I was purposefully being oblique in an attempt to attract and then diffuse conflict.

I don't intend to get involved further there; philosophers are far too proficient at cryptic quibbling, and battling with loaded language. They're the priests of the Religion of Words; adepts of the navelward gaze. I just read my bible and point out any naked emperors. —Quiddity 07:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

SHOUTING

Thanks for the information on Capitalization being construed as SHOUTING (just joking).

Your advice came too late, however, and the damage has taken its tool.

I used to teach Lovely Czech Lady Internet Paramour English - and it was useful emphasis.

By the way - the rule against it does not apply regarding First Letters of a Word - does it?

To do this is a reflection of the German language, which I appreciate.

I was apprised of this Wiki rule explicitly only this week.

I though of it as mere emphasis - that's like shouting; but only shouting is painful.

So the rule does not make sense to me - nut the laws the law.

Please bring your talents to bear on philosophy; but don't be kurt, or your make enemies immediately (not me, by the way). The main issues at hand is the proposed dropping of a word (i'm sure you know which one).

The other immediate issue is the interjection of 'credentialism' into the discourse.

Please do come in - but be constructive; generalities are useless (except with me, if I do say so myself).

Best regards, --Ludvikus 19:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's never too late. Habits can be changed and reputations repaired. Just keep in mind that The World Will Not End Tomorrow!

See my answer above, for why I do not intend to get further involved at talk:philosophy. Thanks again :) —Quiddity 19:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy

I can have a go at it, if others won't resent a new editor looking at it. Can you give me an overview, roughly, the issues it's facing, how it got where it is, what different people think is missing or wrong, and any possible disputes or disapproval someone trying to work on it might walk into? Thanks ! The more detail the more helpful to understand whats needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your useful comments on FT2 page. Pretty well spot on, though there is a further individual, also new, who is a bit of a problem. Nothing like the other one you mentioned, though. Dbuckner 14:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So you like to laugh?

Check this out - it's about me (Ludvikus), naturally.

Thanks for alterting me. To be honest, and I might as well be, I find Ludvikus ludicrous, self-contradictory, often deeply uncivil (and equally often deeply obscure), baselessly arrogant, and lacking in self-control, self-awareness, and understanding of philosophy. He and a few other editors have taken over Philosophy, which is a laughing stock; it and one or two other similar articles have often been cited in my hearing as evidence that Wikipedia shouldn't be taken seriously or used as a reliable resource. Although I find that depressing, I don't feel that there's anything that anyone can do; editors like Ludvikus are tirelessly logodiarrhoeic (somewhere between types 6 and 7 on the Bristol Stool Chart), and have no sense of or respect for Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Even if I had the time and energy to commit myself full time to improving the article, they would frustrate that attempt. Just look at the article's history as soon as the protection was removed: rocket-powered hysterical editing, with edit-warring thrown in, all with the net result of... the usual mess.

Maybe (but not likely to be honest) I'll return to look at it in the Easter vacation, but I've too much teaching (and thus marking, etc.) to do during the term. I admire your ability to keep your cool in the midst of it all. I hope to keep contributing the odd philosophy-related article, but Philosophy itself I'll leave to others (and good luck to them).

(The suggestion that I'm using a sock-puppet to give myself two voices in the debate is a bit odd, given that I've withdrawn from the debate. If only it were the oddest thing that had been said. ~~--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)~~

I've never heard of that scale. Have you? And you should check out Judge Banno aquitting him. Judge Banno ruled that I was not called "shit" - that only what I was doing is "shit".

Hope you are laughing - I sure am!

Did you hear my addressing the Philosopher King User:Peter J King ? Or did you miss that? --Ludvikus 01:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So you deleted it? I guess you find it disgusting. Can't take it, he? but you're advising others on not getting upset. But you can't take it, eh?

Anyway, in New York, we say oral diahrehha(sic) and metal constipation (my spelling X).

Regarding my verboseness - mediocrity I found requires it.

By the way, I posted same there/Philo/Talk - check it out. It's still there. --Ludvikus 02:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

How come you took it upon yourself to cleanup there? --Ludvikus 02:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

See my edit summary: "vt - Ludvikus, see WP:POINT. keep private problems away from Article talkspace. thanks". --Quiddity 02:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In case you doubt my capacity for succinctness - but do you get it?

Many 19th century thinkers, philosophers, scientists were Kantians. What does this mean?

Two forms of intuition: Outer& Inter. What are they? Space & Time. What are their corresponding sciences? Arithmetic & Geometry. What is the relation between them (at the moment in history). After the discovery of Non-Euclidean Geometry, there remains only Arithmetic (Geometry becomes Physics). So What is Arithmetic. Frege says he proves that it's Logic. Russell sows he's mistake. Russell then shouws Arithmetic is Logic.

So was Kant merely a Mathematician?

Have I been succinct enough - yet preserving understanding? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in debating Kant or even discussing philosophy. I'm merely trying to ease the development of the article. --Quiddity 02:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Ludvikus

Hello - would you support this? It really has become impossible with this constant stream of illiterate, unsourced and factually incorrect edits, and a refusal to negotiate any changes on the talk page (not that one would want to negotiate anything, given the exhaustion that would result). The guy is absolutely tireless - follow his trail). Leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dbuckner 09:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comments about RfC's on Ludvikus talk page. Are they really depressing? What other solution is there? Is it allowed for a bunch of people to work on a separate copy of the article then copy it over? I've been involved with this page for 4 years, it is often difficult, but not anything this bad. Dbuckner 09:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what the admins who are aware of the issue do. I imagine one of them will warn him and then block him if he keeps it up tomorrow (today). Talking of which, bed time here :) --Quiddity 10:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Policeman

I don't think you are at all heldful, or consistent. You seem to think that one should be called "shit" is to be taken humorlessly? In do not think we need another policeman. I would be interested in hearing what your "documents" are on "philosophy"? Dbuckner can take care of himself. If you are not capable of following my brief arguments, then don't tell me be brief. And I am disappointed at you lack of impartiality - that you have taken sides with "poor" Dbrucker. Where do you think the "shit" on me comes from? He keeps it on his talk page - he seems to giggle over it.

So you are not the person who I imagined you to be. Why don't you remove that "shit" on me from Poor Mr. Dbrucker's page? Don't get me wrong. I can take this "shit" which you cannot. But I am quite disappointed in your lack of fairness. If you cannot tolerate this shit on me or on Wiki, why don't you be fair and ask Dbuckner to remove this "shitty" discription of me that he so joyfully keeps on his talk page. Anf if I'm too long-winded - it's because I'm affraid that you are another one of those who will disappoint me in their lack of fairmindedness. I hope I'm wrong.

Best regards,--Ludvikus 10:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

On Philosopher King

And you are missing the point.

And probably incapable of understanding this bief legitimate question on the Phil. Talk page. I hope I'm wrong: Does User:Peter J King = Peter J. King?

PS:I'm also trying to assertain if there's suckpottery[sic] going on. --Ludvikus 10:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You expect me to take "shit" which you cannot stand, but my gentle reference to Philosopher King in this context to think is abussive? In that context, what's you take on "rationality" in philosophy. Do you consider Philosophy's Essence to involve Rationality? That irrationality is a mere Accident?

Unless you demonstrate to me an understanding of my point, I will take you as another instance which confirms the opposite of rationality. I hope I'm mistaken, and you remove the "shit" that you expect me to tolerate but which you yourself cannot stand. Are you laughing now? --Ludvikus 11:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe them to be the same individual, but it is not relevant to writing the article, as I have pointed out. But you are "probably incapable of understanding this". (Can you not see how that is rude? Why would you write that?? It is aggressive and childish. This is why I can no longer take you seriously.)

I removed the image from my talkpage because this is my space, and I removed it from talk:philosophy because IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ARTICLE. You can bring it up in the RfC, which is surely imminent.

I'm trying to help you not piss everyone off, but you don't seem to pay any attention to what people ask of you (like not using erratic indenting and numerous new subheaders. and not trying to debate philosophy on my talkpage). How rational is that? (that's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.) --Quiddity 20:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Current disruption on Philosophy Talk

Hi - your comments on the talk page have been insightful and useful. Unfortunately it is very hard to locate them due to the current disruption on the page (mostly caused by Ludvikus, in my view, though there is one other, who is less disruptive). A community ban on one of the editors (Ludvikus) has been proposed by Banno, which I strongly support. However, other administrators feel there is not much evidence of any disruption. If you do feel that there is a problem, and that current conditions make work on the article difficult or impossible, please leave a message on FT2's talk page. FT2 is currently co-ordinating work on the Philosophy article. Dbuckner 08:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How are you?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 09:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job on the clean up. And I appreciate your neatness. And because of it, I'd like to see you make some content contribution. Regards, --Ludvikus 21:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Much appreciated. As you are so neat, may I ask you to do the appropriate adjustments for me? And if not, could you kindly specify the px/image? Would be much appreciated. --Ludvikus 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful job - adjusting image size- you have a good artist's eye! --Ludvikus 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy Workshop & Archive

In light of FT2's Workshop, why don't you archive the Talk page at Philosophy - so we'll have a clean slate? --Ludvikus 00:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice their's this dead image on your user page: [[Image:(filename).gif|right|150px|thumb|CaptionHere]] - you might want to clean that. --Ludvikus 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's for me to copy&paste to use as a template. --Quiddity 03:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Award to you for Peacemaking in Philosophy--Ludvikus 23:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 Hrs for disruptive editing

Ludvikus, after the recent spat of material that you have cut-and-pasted from talk pages onto the talk page of Philosophy,[2], [3], I am blocking you for a 48 hour period. I am of the opinion that you have exhausted the patience of the community, and that both you and they will benefit from a break. It is a shame that you did not follow Quiddity's advice, [4], instead of selectively quoting him[5]. Banno 12:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought perhaps you were not aware that Banno banned me because of you.
You know, by now that ultimate I don't care about all that. I do my written work on paper. This is really is an experiment for me. And it's great Fun. I do love both Philosophy and Wikipedia - and it will be around beyond many of the silly players here.
But I thought you might not have known that Banno did not ban me for Mel's Stool, but because of the way I quoted you.
But you immediately corrected it - so Banno's issue was a trivial.
I take you to be a pleasant gentlemen - from your behavior, and distaste for the distaseful.
And I feel you are most likely an honest fello.
So I'm curious if you were aware of the above, and what your thoughts were on all that? Ludvikus 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

FT2 is away this weekend, as the note at the top of his user/talk page says. I defer all judgement to him, and any other uninvolved admins, who are aware of the problems already. I strongly recommend that you take a break until Monday, and stop adding to the quantity of discussion that they will have to examine. --Quiddity 06:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I will consider carefully your opinion. --Ludvikus 09:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

It's not essential or anything, but I just thought that I'd make clear that when I referred to Ludvikus as suffering from logodiarrhoea (a Greek word that I've heard used in Cyprus; I don't know about Greece), I wasn't referring to the content but the quantity, the constant stream of words; the Bristol Stool Chart was intended as a humorous indication of that. Ludvikus has consistently misrepresented that in his attempts to blow it up as a smokescreen for his own constant incivility, etc. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)