Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ludwigs2 (talk | contribs) at 05:25, 21 February 2011 (→User talk:Joshua P. Schroeder: a couple of days, probably). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

"Ahem"

Must read (if you haven't already)

You're above this, since you use much bigger words than almost anyone (including myself, which I take offense to as an SAT tutor). Nonetheless, it's a really frickin' good article, even though I find the gender topic to be a bit hackneyed at times : http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/wikipedia-this-is-a-mans-world-2206207.html .Ocaasi (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, BeCritical linked me that article a few threads above, and yeah, I think it's great (and no, I don't think I'm above that - I actually wish that simple, direct journalistic writing came more naturally to me). That being said, I think you're the first person I've ever met who suffers from vocabulary envy. Interesting... I wonder what Freud would say about that? --Ludwigs2 00:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, don't we all wish we could be more pedestrian. Damn you little words! So, efficient, so non-circumlocutory. My penchant for synonyms was an early fetish. I believe it's what the merely above-average do to feel less threatened by actual genius. Why buy the whole car when you can just get the rims instead? Ghetto braggadocio. Lexicographical bling. Shiny. Pretty. Ocaasi (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see: a clear case of verbo-syllabic fixation, which is often marked by a sado-masochistic relationship to split infinitives. Tell me, do you find you have particularly intense, uncontrollable emotions around dangling participles? <smirk>

there's the other side, too, though, which I am occasionally guilty of myself: hefty words used to carry tiny, tiny, tiny thoughts. Or as I might put it after a couple of beers (and a dare): cornucopias of omphalocentric erudition laden on inconsequential minutiae. Two beers only, though; no one can even think the words 'omphalocentric erudition' on their third beer. --Ludwigs2 02:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

See, you did it again. Omphalocentric. Now I need a dictionary. And a new hobby. Ocaasi (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"Navel-gazing". Sorry, I was in the 98 percentile on the GRE verbals, and that was before graduate study. Think of it as one of those idiot savant things (as I do), and don't let it get to you. --Ludwigs2 05:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Joshua P. Schroeder

Given the history of harassment and incivility by and against this editor, I felt your comments were inappropriate and removed them. My apologies if you feel I overstepped in my refactoring. Go ahead and use your best judgement in how to respond. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In the future I'd prefer it if you asked me to redact rather than redacting me directly, but it's not a matter of great consequence. I'll also point out that SA (err... JPS) and I had been getting along fairly well for months prior to his getting in trouble, and that I had little to nothing to do with the mess he landed in. The 'history' you're talking about is bordering on 'ancient history'. I don't generally hold grudges - though I do learn from experience - and as a rule when people stop attacking me conflicts disappear. --Ludwigs2 18:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well since you say this I think you should refactor JPS's name from the talk page of WP:Town sheriff. As you are aware this editor is blocked for a year and cannot defend himself, never mind there is no good reason to be mentioning him there. So if you would refactor, and I mean remove, comments about this editor I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal 13:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

JPS has a long and extremely well-documented history of every one of these actions. There is nothing contentious about this at all, it's merely descriptive and in no way constitutes an attack on him, and it is a perfect example of what I see as a systemic problem on wikipedia. If he didn't want to be used as an example of problematic behavior, then he should not have put such an excessive amount of effort into being an example of the problematic behavior I want to talk about.

Frankly Crohnie (and I hope you will forgive me a moment of honest anger), I am getting tired of this. I have never sock-puppetted, never baited someone in an effort to get them blocked, never engaged in a tenth of the personal attacks and disruptive behavior that JPS has done (which is astonishing, considering how stubborn and pointed I can be when I want), and I have always tried my best to be rational, reasonable, and fair with both people and topics (which is not remotely the case with JPS). I even try to be fair to him, despite the fact that he's been complicit in gaming me into getting at least three blocks (and trying to get me blocked at least five other times, which I dodged). JPS makes me look like frigging Mahatma Gandhi, and yet people treat him like some goddamned benighted tragic hero whose reputation must be defended, while they bust my chops endlessly over every tiny little thing they can dredge out of my three years of history. To hell with that. I am not going to beat JPS over the head with it, and if he wants to come back to the project and play nice I'll deal with him fairly and let bygones be bygones, as I was trying to do before he got blocked this last time. but I feel perfectly entitled to use his obvious, extensive, and endlessly documented crapulent behavior as as an example of what is wrong with this screwed up project.

So yes, there is a good reason to use him as an example there; and no, I will not refactor it. I'm happy to discuss this further - here, or in a public forum if you prefer - but you're going to have to use some better argument than 'we ought to be polite to him', because to date no one has ever suggested that it would be polite to stop talking far more stupid (and far less relevant) crap about me, and I can't see one single reason why I should make my reasoned argument weaker out of some sense of politeness that apparently few people think I deserve in turn. --Ludwigs2 18:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to anger you like this. Just for the record, this request was my idea, not anyone else. JPS did not contact me to get this refactored which it sounds like you think has happened so I want to make that clear that this is not the case. I try to be fair to everyone myself and also polite. I don't think it's fair to talk about someone like you did when they cannot defend or comment themselves about what you are saying. What you say about JPS is your opinion and yes others do hold the same opinion and others do not. I don't know what got JPS blocked this last time since I haven't checked into it and to be honest I don't plan to waste my time doing so. All I was asking was to remove his name. You can make the same points without naming any editors since there are a lot of editors that fit into the points you were making. You are asking for the Town sheriff to be accepted as a policy or guideline but the problem I am having with it is that you are having troubles keeping yourself civil during all the discussions. Why is that? Again I'm sorry to have angered you about this but I still believe you should refactor out names of editors. Have a good day, --CrohnieGal 18:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my burst of anger. let me sit a bit with the thought about removing his name and leaving it anonymous. As I said, it weakens the argument - no one can actually look at the behavior and see it for themselves if it's anonymous - but maybe that would be alright. honestly I don't really see how he could object to it even if he weren't blocked, since the behavior is all well documented in ANI and ArbCom cases. He could try to justify his behavior, of course (as he did at ArbCom and ANI), but it's the justification of the problematic behavior as useful that's the issue in the first place, so I don't see that there's any worry there, either. but let me consider it.

With respect to my not being civil - I'm not sure what you're referring to. Can you give me an example? I know that I am handing out some bitter pills - as I keep saying to people, this is a new and difficult concept, and not everyone will understand it straight-out. many people will need to wait to see it in action, because explanations will simply not suffice in some cases. Is it uncivil of me to explain to someone that they are not understanding a concept, and that they should stop beating their head against it until they can get a concrete example? I do understand that I have a context problem - I'm used to explaining ideas to students and other academics: people who are flexible on the idea that they might misunderstand. normal people are much less inclined to accept the thought that they might be wrong about something, which is fine because normal people will generally sit back skeptically and wait to be convinced. However, when I have someone like Will who engages in a protracted argument from misconception (i.e., he clearly doesn't understand the underlying principles of the model, yet keeps arguing from a perspective that makes no sense either in terms of the model itself or in terms of some competing model, and refuses to engage concrete examples), what can I do except point out that s/he doesn't understand and should step back and wait for a concrete case? There's no use in endlessly explaining the same points that failed to sink in the last time, and there are only so many different ways I can frame the issue in the hopes of it sinking in.

Again, seriously, some example of incivility would be useful here. what I see is me trying to explain a difficult concept, failing to get it across, and then having to explain in fairly strong terms that we should wait until a concrete demonstration can be arranged. I understand that annoys people, but I don't see it as uncivil and I don't see any way around it. --Ludwigs2 19:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok here are a couple of examples where I think you are over the top in your behavior. Here you could have made the same points without the personal commentary you make., again too personal, no need for that, remember talk about the text not the editor plus you forget to assume good faith, & this one is really uncivil in my opinion. Basically what I see is you talking about the need for a town sheriff to control misbehavior but when someone, anyone disagrees or asks you questions it seems to get personal with you. I believe it was Franamax that questioned this too. Now as far as I am aware, you and I haven't had any kind of fallouts or disagreements, correct me if I'm wrong. I just think you need to evaluate your way of talking to other editors. You can be direct all you like, I think I'm being direct now, but I'm not being rude or personal about things. Well got to go, RL calling. I hope this helps. Take care, --CrohnieGal 20:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

hunh - looks like the stylesheet server went down for a bit - very weird...

at any rate, all I can say is I don't actually agree with your assessment. point by point, in order:

• is factual. if you want to nitpick, I could have phrased the first paragraph better, but someone would have to be stretching to make that personal. I'm sorry if it offends you, but most people on wikipedia have practically no clue about the analytical use of the word consensus (nor should they - that's my field, not theirs), and it is a fact that several of the people who are participating (Will in particular) have reason to be annoyed at me from other venues.
• is only uncivil if Will was not editing tendentiously, but I think it's clear from the preceding discussion that he was. Are you saying that I don't have a right to push back against a tendentious editor?
• could have done without the word 'pissy', granted, but it is basically pointing out to PM that he is misrepresenting the concept and arguing from a conservative skeptical position. That's not a bad thing - I accept that a lot of people are going to be skeptical about this, and that there's a a higher standard of proof that such people will need to be convinced. However, the talk page of the idea under development is not the correct place to deal with strongly-skeptical people, since there is nothing that can be said which will convince them. They have to see it.

Now let me take a stab at the your real objection here, which is my tone. I am being frank, authoritative, and uncompromising; I am explaining things in clear detail, and I am calling people in unfailing detail on their errors in logic and understanding; I am cornering them into being active, reasoned participants in the discussion through brute force. In short, I'm browbeating people, a thing I am very well equipped to do. It is not something I enjoy doing, mind you - it makes me nauseous to have to do it for any prolonged period of time - but it is something that I have to do on project, because if I didn't do it (and if I weren't good at it) I would have been indef-banned through some skanky political maneuver a long time ago. sometimes I overdo it, yes, but never by much, and never in a way that is unjustified or would be damaging to any serious conversation. It's just an effective tool that keeps the wolves at bay, when wolves come sniffing around.

If there were sheriffs around, I wouldn't have to do it, and would never do it by choice. Since there aren't, I work within the system as it is in the best way I know how. I'm not suggesting you should like it, or even respect it; I just want you to understand the necessity of it. --Ludwigs2 21:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No reason you should have to refactor. You are uncivil sometimes but not badly. A Sheriff might have to refactor some of the stuff you say, but that's just the Sheriff's job. You seem to have trouble because you're smarter than nearly all the people here, and furthermore you don't suffer in silence and pretend that the crap that goes on, partly due to the fact that there are no civil rights on WP, doesn't actually go on. (You also don't have opinion hidden behind a facade.) WP is mob rule, tempered only by the fact that most of it is out in the open (though not enough of it). Can you give me a heads-up when the Sheriff proposal is ready to be presented to the community? I'm busy in RL and haven't been following the general arguments. Thx (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It'll be a couple of days. I'm taking a short semiwikibreak until I stop being annoyed. not too long though. --Ludwigs2 05:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:WQA

Has a mention of you at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ludwigs2 Collect (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Close an RfC?

Hey Ludwigs2,

I'm looking for an uninvolved admin to review an RfC we've had on Elizabeth II. I'm mulling over bringing this topic to informal mediation, and wanted to get a third opinion before doing so. If you have a moment to look over, comment, and close the RfC, I'd be most grateful.

I'm running this request by you SlimVirgin, and Sandstein.

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Slim took care of it. NickCT (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

ok. --Ludwigs2 19:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)