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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

sigh...

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]