| Revision as of 01:27, 9 March 2011 editShock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk | contribs)15,524 edits →Your recent AN thread: comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:51, 13 June 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,295,546 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 20) (bot | ||
| (933 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{not around|3=9 March 2013}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 75K | |maxarchivesize = 75K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 20 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| |algo = old(10d) | |algo = old(10d) | ||
| Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives|auto=yes}} | {{archives|auto=yes}} | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Didn't know if you've been keeping tabs, but ] has been making a number of the same edits that I has been reverted in the past, as well as started up (or restarted) noticeboard discussions and . I was hoping for some outside opinion as I am just repeating myself over and over and you have provided valuable input on the talk page in the past. Thanks for the consideration. ] (]) 01:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you are involved. Thank you. | |||
| :Heh, I see you're all back at it with Ronz and Yobol. Well I predicted that the "retirement" was just to placate the Admin who was almost ready to impose a ban. I think I was marginalized because I made the case at the time, in terms maybe some thought too strong. Anyway, you and Bruce have fun. --]<sup>]</sup> 20:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not at all. Simply, some editors have extreme difficulty following ] and ]. --] (]) 20:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::@TFI: I'm just trying to improve the signal to noise ratio on that page. probably won't work. | |||
| :::@Ronz: I'd like to think your comment was a moment of honest self-reflection. was it? Eh, never mind, I don't really want to know. --] 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you don't want me to mind, remove it. --] (]) 23:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I saw on the talk page and on AN/I the possibility of a RFC/U. Did you still have intentions on that, and if so, is there anything I can do to help? Bruce is moving full speed ahead with his behavior on the talk page. ] (]) 16:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Bullet points vs. not == | |||
| Please stop reverting my use of bullet points. As I've explained elsewhere, to many other editors, it isn't inappropriate and a broad range of administrators use this form of talk page posting. For example, a casual perusal of ] rapidly comes up with five different administrators using bullet style for identation . Two of these are checkusers and oversighters, and one of those is a bureaucrat. Using bullet points for indentation is well accepted. If you want to edit your own posts, fine. But please stop editing mine. Thank you, --] (]) 18:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :And if I were having a discussion with them I would edit their posts as well. Throwing in needless bullet points makes it difficult to follow the thread of conversation, and confuses people where ''actual'' bullets are needed to structure things. This isn't about you and what you want; this is about reasonable discussion practices. --] 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :*If you remove my bullet points, I'll reinstate them, pure and simple. There's no policy against them, and best practices from multiple administrators and bureaucrats allows them. You might not like them, but that's not a reason to remove them. I could just as well force your indentations to ''include'' bullet points. --] (]) 21:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :*I will also note that you have not done as you said at ], where you responded to four different editors that used bullet points right before you, including two administrators. You also did not avail yourself of the opportunity to remove the bullet points from by ]. --] (]) 21:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::ugh, you're both being dorks, and I'm not going to argue with you about this absolutely trivial issue anymore. You do what you want, I'll do what I want, and if bullet points continually appear and disappear from the discussion no one will really care (no one except for you and me, that is, and frankly I don't really care, either - I'm just f%ckin' around). God save me from people who take this kind of crap seriously. {{=)|biggrin}} --] 21:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| As a mediator, do you know why the bot ] from ]? ] (]) 23:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :at a guess because you added a link for the article name rather than just plain text. I've corrected that, and we'll see if it solves the problem. if so, that's a fairly major bug that I'll need to do something about. --] 23:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for the formatting fix. A minor correction: I didn't create the and am not involved in the dispute. ] (]) 23:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::ok, that was the problem. I need to figure out what the poster did so that I can figure out how to keep people from doing that anymore. --] 23:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Haymaker == | |||
| What's the purppose of throwing a haymaker if you are not going to counterpunch? ]. ] (]) 21:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :exactly! {{=)|wink}} but be careful: while I assume you are joking around, that's very close to sounding like a confession to ]ing, which is a nononono on project. --] 02:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit Warring == | |||
| I pointed this out already in edit summaries and on the talk page, but it's appropriate to also make note of it here. I won't template you, since I know you so object to it, but consider this a pointer to ] (the warning for which is <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki>). You are currently engaged in an edit war on ], irrespective of how many reverts you've made in a given period of time. It would be good to refamiliarize yourself with the distinction between edit warring and the 3 revert rule. I say this because if the warring continues, I'll have to post an RfPP, which at the present pace may result in you receiving attention for taking part, including being temporarily blocked. This would mar your block log, so I'd not suggest continuing to war. All the best, — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 01:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Ludwigs2, why don't you just reword per the source and put it in another section you start on psudoscience in medicine. That is how things will likely turn out, and this way you get to use your pwn wording. I have seen you WP:write for the enemy, and you do a very good NPOV job at it. :) ] (]) 01:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::@ Jess: I'm using the talk page, the people who keep reverting me are not. that makes ''them'' guilty of edit-warring. beyond that, you go do what you feel a need to do (I'll adapt); I am perfectly cognizant of wikipedia rules, and I have no intention of giving up on this issue until it is resolved appropriately (which is not going to happen by reams of skeptics showing up to make reverts against sourcing policy). If you want to use reason, I'd prefer that, and that would be nice; otherwise, I have no problem lower myself to your level to play this out. | |||
| ::@ PPdd: because I'm pissed off at a bunch of <plural expletive deleted> at the moment, and I just don't want to. It's Jess' f%cking idea, so Jess can f%cking implement it. | |||
| ::when I calm down a bit I might be more amenable, but at the moment the RfC is leaning heavily towards delete and I'd prefer that to a new section just out of pure spite. --] 01:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not going to press this much, since I know you're taking some time to calm down before tackling the issue again, and I think that's probably a good idea since we need time to hear other input on the talk page anyway. However, I ''will'' note two things. For one, the discuss step of ] has nothing to do with ]; One can edit war while posting to the talk page, which is what's occurring now. Secondly, and very generously sidestepping your unnecessary expletives, moving the content to a new section was not my idea. You posted about it first, and I suggested that it would be a good alternative to edit warring. I explained this on the talk page already (in my comment that spurred your ANI threat on my talk, in fact). Since, obviously, being ] is not a good way to edit, I still think it's a viable option to try. I'll leave it at that until you come back at this tomorrow. All the best, — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 02:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Editors were in the process of . If you try to improve the text rather than continuing to wholesale delete all the text it may work better. ] (]) 20:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Your recent AN thread == | |||
| Hello, this is to make you aware that in your recently started ] thread, I have invited you to show cause why you should not be sanctioned for making threats against others. I will assume that you decline to respond to this concern if you do not do so within two hours of your next edit. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Interesting - what exactly are you referring to? And you should know me better than that - I never decline a conversation of this sort, and always welcome any critiques of my actions. --] 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::What's everyone so worked up for? Its just a sentence in an article, and in Misplaced Pages, no less. :) ] (]) 23:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been temporarily ''']''' from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks"></span>, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as ] or ]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the ]. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."</small></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> | |||
| You are blocked for 72 hours for . It is not acceptable to attempt to coerce administrators into taking action against an opponent in a dispute by threatening that otherwise "things will get ugly" and that you will "shout down and shut up" the other editor. This block is in application and enforcement of ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I've made an appeal to arbcom, and am considering whether to start a desysop procedure against you for gross misuse of your powers. we'll see. --] 00:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a good candidate for the most absurd and abusive block that I have ever observed. ] ] 00:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it would be more constructive to reconsider the remarks you made. I do not think that they should have led to a block - I have seen far worse comments that administrators have chosen to ignore. However, it is better to phrase your comments in a more polite fashion. And complaining about the administrator is unlikely to be a successful strategy. ] (]) 00:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::After weeks of QuackGuru refusing to communicate in a meaningful way (as is his usual MO), and after weeks of QuackGuru and some others pushing semi-blatant nonsense into the ] article as if they were intentionally trying to discredit it, it is completely inappropriate to shoot the messenger for expressing his frustration. ] ] 00:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't have a problem considering the remarks I made, or even redacting if necessary. I just wasn't given the opportunity - sandstein warned me, and then when I asked for clarification he blocked me. what am I supposed to have done? | |||
| ::::WIth respect to complaints about administrators - this is (IMO) a clear abuse of authority, and a misuse of the arbitration ruling. Sandstein was obviously riled up and obviously in a hurry to block me, for whatever reason. While it may come to nothing, I think I should at least put it on record that that he made this bad of an error in judgement, otherwise what's to stop him from blocking me again the next time he feels like it? I don't really like the idea of having the sword of sandstein hanging over my head, waiting for me to twitch some way he doesn't like. --] 00:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am confused. Above you say you have appealed to Arbcom, but below you have added a normal unblock template. Are you sure that's wise? ] ] 01:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have set up a request for unblock at ANI. I do not think that an administrator is allowed unblock except through ANI or ArbCom. ] (]) 01:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The block is wholly unwarranted. In an ideal world Sandstein would be censured for such a disproportionate action, but we've reached a state where AE blocks carry the force of Holy Writ regardless of their intrinsic merits or lack thereof. ] (]) 01:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock|I acknowledge that the comment I made was a bit heated, and I will certainly do my best to make calmer statements in the future. however, I do not believe this statement can actually be construed as a 'threat' or a 'coercion' - it was more like a plea to administrators to help me cope with an intransigent editor. Nor was I actually given a chance to explain before I was blocked - I was blocked immediately after I asked sandstein for clarification on what he was talking about (it wasn't at all clear to me what he was referring to at first). I do not believe that this block is justified or necessary, and I would like to have it lifted. --] 00:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)}} | |||
Latest revision as of 08:51, 13 June 2024
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Ludwigs2 has not edited Misplaced Pages since 9 March 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |