Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:09, 15 October 2008

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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)

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, 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 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: 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)

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 ☎ 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 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". •Jim62sch• 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. 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 01:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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