![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Just came across this. If you haven't, there's a lot of interesting ideas about the way WP works (or doesn't). Peter jackson ( talk) 16:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
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 WP:AN/I rapidly comes up with five different administrators using bullet style for identation 1 2 3 4 5. 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, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
As a mediator, do you know why the bot removed Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-26/Ambarish Srivastava from Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases? Cunard ( talk) 23:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Didn't know if you've been keeping tabs, but BruceGrubb 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 here and here. 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. Yobol ( talk) 01:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Weston_Price.2C_NPOV.2C_and_MEDRS regarding an issue with which you are involved. Thank you.
What's the purppose of throwing a haymaker if you are not going to counterpunch? "These punches pack power, but leave the person vulnerable to a counter punch during the wind up or if the haymaker misses". PPdd ( talk) 21:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
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 WP:EW (the warning for which is {{ uw-3rr}}). You are currently engaged in an edit war on Pseudoscience, 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, — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Editors were in the process of discussing the matter on the talk page. If you try to improve the text rather than continuing to wholesale delete all the text it may work better. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, this is to make you aware that in your recently started WP:AN 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. Sandstein 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, 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 WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. 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."
You are blocked for 72 hours for threats of disruption. 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 23:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs2 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
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.
Accept reason:
Considering the user's statement that he will redact the comments that the blocking admin found to be a threat, adding that he didn't mean the comments to be a threat of disruption, the comments here by editors who support unblocking, and the fact that this block is a long stretch of the ArbCom pseduoscience restrictions, I'm going to unblock Ludwigs2. At this point, the block is punative, not preventive Dreadstar ☥ 02:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, please strike through these comments: "if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up." and " if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly" as these comments can be construed as threats to cause disruption and attack another editor. Use the Dispute resolution process instead. Dreadstar ☥ 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Dreadstar and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Sandstein 06:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, you're unblocked. In case they didn't feed you properly in jail, here's a cookie.
PPdd has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
I added some thoughts to a page you are probably watching. I genuinely think that you are not in the wrong here, and would feel bad were my addition to backfire. Simple three-click undo link, should you think my comments inaccurate or unproductive. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 17:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs, would you please use the contact tool here so that I can ask a question ... offline. Thanks! Tom Butler ( talk) 17:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Since WP:WIP, right now seems like a "weird time" to come in and do massive changes, especially as there is a massive DE/SPE/multi3RR/multiSP/MP investigation under way (which I asked to be closed AGF, but the multiple admins involved refused to do so, even though I was the one who brought them all up.) One DE/SPE/multi3RR/multiSP/MP is topic banned and is still disrupting the talk page, and another deleted the 3RR and DE notices on his talk page and then edit warred and outright lied several times in order to disrupt talk. As you should have noticed by now, I almost always find your perspective, (which is unusual for such a POV since it is (almost) alway combined with good reasoning), to help improve WP and help me notice my own narrow-mindedness. :) PPdd ( talk) 19:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Then help out in a meaningful way. There are five spirits Shen (Emporor, Will, Intellect, Etherial Soul, Corporal Soul), Five associated yin organ systems (Heart, Kidney, Spleen, Liver, Lungs). Five Phases and Five associated elements (Earth Fire Water Metal Wood), Five associated planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn), Five associated directions (North, East, South, West, Center), Five Tastes (Bitter, Salty, Sweet, Sour, Pungent), 4 natures – (Cold, Hot, Warm, Cool), 12+20 meridians, etc. There is also Blood, Qi, Yin, Yang, Pathogens, Toxicity, etc. There is much more ontology. Then there are relationships between all of these things. It gets complex fast. What does it all mean? - The article must answer this. How does it all tie to the medicines? to the other practices? I have been waiting for another editor who has been editing about theory to finish this, out of courtesy, since he has been working hard and I don’t want to step on his toes in the middle, since I do not know his strategy or the MOS style he has set as the first principal contributor on this. Then I will tie it all together. But instead of taking a couple of weeks, he is taking MONTHS. How is it possible for TCM NOT to look weird if there is no explanation at all? It would be like a stone age person going to a computer lab, or physics lab, or watching surgery on the spine for pain in the leg (sciatica – ridiculous?), or watching sausage being made. It looks weird because they do not understand it. TCM article will always look weird until it is explained “why”, instead of what appears to be a random list, which it is not. How can the article be "balanced" in its infancy? There are currently POV editors who think the article is some kind of "presentation to the public" of TCM. It is not. It is a presentation of knowledge about TCM", not a public relations stunt. If you really want to help, work on this paragraph and gradually work toward what is already in the article having meaning. PPdd ( talk) 05:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Heavens to Betsy! Did you really just say that you don't know anything about TCM except what's on 'TCM advert sites', and you still feel entitled to forge ahead and do major revisions to the article? You do realize that if we took that approach with western medicine our medical articles would be filled with information about the LapBand, viagra, boob jobs, collagen injections, and third-rate untested pharmaceuticals from Mexico and the Balkan states? Argh!
This is NOT a proper or respectable way to add information to the encyclopedia. Granting that I expect this from kids who edit - kids don't have the mental focus or knowledge-base to consider the topic as a whole - I do not expect it from people who aim to be dedicated editors. If you don't have the perspective you need to make a reasonable, well-considered article, then you are just doing harm to the encyclopedia. Editing from a bias is one thing (that can be balanced by other editors), but editing in a state of sheer ignorance is ridiculous!
Ugh. You make my head hurt. -- Ludwigs2 18:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Problems at Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).The discussion is about the topic Traditional Chinese medicine. Regards, — Six words ( talk) 10:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Other editors had been letting me edit witohut interruption until I had finished adding content, tied the content together with 5 Phase C. alchemy and astrology, organized it, then examined its content and pared it down, then reworded it all for NPOV. My construction tag must have been accidentally removed while I was working. So there is no reason I should do the same to you as might have been done to me in error, not anticipating how the content might ultimately be used, what would be kept in a semi-finished context, or how it would all be tied together and presented, once all of the easily available cotent was in with RS. I was in the middle of reading The Moneky and the Inkpot when you started in at TCM. I had read parts of it before, not as a TCM book, but as a taxonomy, metaphysics, and history of Natural history science book, such as regarding "energy" and the soul. I might not be the version of "radical skeptic" you know. I am an ardent Singularitarian, coming from the Schroedinger What is Life school of thought, said to be very "oriental" in style, although I think that is wishful thinking by some. In particular, I was interested in the metaphysics of alternative views of transformation, and in the "soul of the hanged criminal", and "life force". Most skeptics dismiss the "soul" and "life force"... until they are about to die, whence they all instantly convert into agnosticism. "Commonly found or used" differs greatly from being "easy to get", such as human placents, or "rare but highly valued", such as gold and jewlry regarding wealth, or in TCM, deer and tiger penis and ox bezoar. And unfortunately "ex" does not mean "friend" as you just called her- :( PPdd ( talk) 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
“What kind of violence might be done to a system of knowledge when met and deconstructed by another? Is it possible to understand an epistemological world vastly removed from one’s own either in time or space? This question, which lies at the heart of any attempt to understand local epistemologies… (footnote: By “local epistemology” I mean a way of understanding the study of knowledge-making that acknowledges that there are different forms of epistemology, i.e., equally justifiable systems of knowledge that operate on different principles or in different contexts… See Ian Hacking “Historical Epistemology”… and in “styles of reasoning” – “Historical Ontology”… These and related approaches acknowledge a phenomenon that I also explore here: there are a plurality of justifiable systems of gathering knowledge about the world. /footnote)"
Clerk note: Your comments
here were both unnecessary and unhelpful.
Mathsci had not even been mentioned on the talk page prior to your bringing him up. When you brought him up, you did so only to make a snide remark about him ("I don't think Mathsci made a single post in that entire mess that didn't involve accusing someone of being a fringe advocate") that did not contribute meaningfully to any discussion. Your other comments in that thread were reasonable, but that reference to Mathsci could have been avoided easily without detracting from your points.
NW (
Talk) 03:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 01:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
That rule doesn't apply to moving comments that are put in the wrong place. Go ahead and report me if it makes you feel better.— Chowbok ☠ 23:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Ludwigs. I see that wiki life is as lively as ever for you. I was wondering if you know if there is a policy about users contacting other users with offers (thinly disguised spam). Just wondering if you've come across any discussions on this? thanks. -- stmrlbs| talk 07:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs - take good care of yourself. Do all that de-stressing stuff (you probably know the stuff I mean, lol!) If nothing else, get out into some open countryside (or a deserted beach or some real forest) by yourself, turn off the cell/mobile, stare at the horizon and just stop moving (apart from breathing, of course, it's important to remember to breathe ... ). Give that 20 minutes. Then break into gentle stroll, or lie-in-sun, or sit on log / rock / anything else handy. Take a full day. Better still, two days. Pesky ( talk) 16:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Please cut out the personal remarks. My involvement in the WP:SHERIFF proposal has nothing to do with you. You are alleging bad motives on my part and there is no justification for it. If you have a problem with my editing then please say so explicitly in an appropriate forum. Will Beback talk 07:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
There's no need to mention the R&I case again on the case pages; it clearly isn't helping matters. NW ( Talk) 14:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a note. Brangifer is very quick to cry COI. See here He has a clear history of trying to eliminate "fringe" editors via wikilaw rather than negotiating edits. By his definition, I would be COI for virtually all "fringe" topics. Tom Butler ( talk) 01:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Just came across this. If you haven't, there's a lot of interesting ideas about the way WP works (or doesn't). Peter jackson ( talk) 16:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
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 WP:AN/I rapidly comes up with five different administrators using bullet style for identation 1 2 3 4 5. 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, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
As a mediator, do you know why the bot removed Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-26/Ambarish Srivastava from Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases? Cunard ( talk) 23:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Didn't know if you've been keeping tabs, but BruceGrubb 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 here and here. 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. Yobol ( talk) 01:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Weston_Price.2C_NPOV.2C_and_MEDRS regarding an issue with which you are involved. Thank you.
What's the purppose of throwing a haymaker if you are not going to counterpunch? "These punches pack power, but leave the person vulnerable to a counter punch during the wind up or if the haymaker misses". PPdd ( talk) 21:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
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 WP:EW (the warning for which is {{ uw-3rr}}). You are currently engaged in an edit war on Pseudoscience, 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, — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Editors were in the process of discussing the matter on the talk page. If you try to improve the text rather than continuing to wholesale delete all the text it may work better. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, this is to make you aware that in your recently started WP:AN 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. Sandstein 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, 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 WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. 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."
You are blocked for 72 hours for threats of disruption. 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 23:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs2 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
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.
Accept reason:
Considering the user's statement that he will redact the comments that the blocking admin found to be a threat, adding that he didn't mean the comments to be a threat of disruption, the comments here by editors who support unblocking, and the fact that this block is a long stretch of the ArbCom pseduoscience restrictions, I'm going to unblock Ludwigs2. At this point, the block is punative, not preventive Dreadstar ☥ 02:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, please strike through these comments: "if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up." and " if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly" as these comments can be construed as threats to cause disruption and attack another editor. Use the Dispute resolution process instead. Dreadstar ☥ 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Dreadstar and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Sandstein 06:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, you're unblocked. In case they didn't feed you properly in jail, here's a cookie.
PPdd has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
I added some thoughts to a page you are probably watching. I genuinely think that you are not in the wrong here, and would feel bad were my addition to backfire. Simple three-click undo link, should you think my comments inaccurate or unproductive. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 17:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs, would you please use the contact tool here so that I can ask a question ... offline. Thanks! Tom Butler ( talk) 17:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Since WP:WIP, right now seems like a "weird time" to come in and do massive changes, especially as there is a massive DE/SPE/multi3RR/multiSP/MP investigation under way (which I asked to be closed AGF, but the multiple admins involved refused to do so, even though I was the one who brought them all up.) One DE/SPE/multi3RR/multiSP/MP is topic banned and is still disrupting the talk page, and another deleted the 3RR and DE notices on his talk page and then edit warred and outright lied several times in order to disrupt talk. As you should have noticed by now, I almost always find your perspective, (which is unusual for such a POV since it is (almost) alway combined with good reasoning), to help improve WP and help me notice my own narrow-mindedness. :) PPdd ( talk) 19:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Then help out in a meaningful way. There are five spirits Shen (Emporor, Will, Intellect, Etherial Soul, Corporal Soul), Five associated yin organ systems (Heart, Kidney, Spleen, Liver, Lungs). Five Phases and Five associated elements (Earth Fire Water Metal Wood), Five associated planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn), Five associated directions (North, East, South, West, Center), Five Tastes (Bitter, Salty, Sweet, Sour, Pungent), 4 natures – (Cold, Hot, Warm, Cool), 12+20 meridians, etc. There is also Blood, Qi, Yin, Yang, Pathogens, Toxicity, etc. There is much more ontology. Then there are relationships between all of these things. It gets complex fast. What does it all mean? - The article must answer this. How does it all tie to the medicines? to the other practices? I have been waiting for another editor who has been editing about theory to finish this, out of courtesy, since he has been working hard and I don’t want to step on his toes in the middle, since I do not know his strategy or the MOS style he has set as the first principal contributor on this. Then I will tie it all together. But instead of taking a couple of weeks, he is taking MONTHS. How is it possible for TCM NOT to look weird if there is no explanation at all? It would be like a stone age person going to a computer lab, or physics lab, or watching surgery on the spine for pain in the leg (sciatica – ridiculous?), or watching sausage being made. It looks weird because they do not understand it. TCM article will always look weird until it is explained “why”, instead of what appears to be a random list, which it is not. How can the article be "balanced" in its infancy? There are currently POV editors who think the article is some kind of "presentation to the public" of TCM. It is not. It is a presentation of knowledge about TCM", not a public relations stunt. If you really want to help, work on this paragraph and gradually work toward what is already in the article having meaning. PPdd ( talk) 05:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Heavens to Betsy! Did you really just say that you don't know anything about TCM except what's on 'TCM advert sites', and you still feel entitled to forge ahead and do major revisions to the article? You do realize that if we took that approach with western medicine our medical articles would be filled with information about the LapBand, viagra, boob jobs, collagen injections, and third-rate untested pharmaceuticals from Mexico and the Balkan states? Argh!
This is NOT a proper or respectable way to add information to the encyclopedia. Granting that I expect this from kids who edit - kids don't have the mental focus or knowledge-base to consider the topic as a whole - I do not expect it from people who aim to be dedicated editors. If you don't have the perspective you need to make a reasonable, well-considered article, then you are just doing harm to the encyclopedia. Editing from a bias is one thing (that can be balanced by other editors), but editing in a state of sheer ignorance is ridiculous!
Ugh. You make my head hurt. -- Ludwigs2 18:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Problems at Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).The discussion is about the topic Traditional Chinese medicine. Regards, — Six words ( talk) 10:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Other editors had been letting me edit witohut interruption until I had finished adding content, tied the content together with 5 Phase C. alchemy and astrology, organized it, then examined its content and pared it down, then reworded it all for NPOV. My construction tag must have been accidentally removed while I was working. So there is no reason I should do the same to you as might have been done to me in error, not anticipating how the content might ultimately be used, what would be kept in a semi-finished context, or how it would all be tied together and presented, once all of the easily available cotent was in with RS. I was in the middle of reading The Moneky and the Inkpot when you started in at TCM. I had read parts of it before, not as a TCM book, but as a taxonomy, metaphysics, and history of Natural history science book, such as regarding "energy" and the soul. I might not be the version of "radical skeptic" you know. I am an ardent Singularitarian, coming from the Schroedinger What is Life school of thought, said to be very "oriental" in style, although I think that is wishful thinking by some. In particular, I was interested in the metaphysics of alternative views of transformation, and in the "soul of the hanged criminal", and "life force". Most skeptics dismiss the "soul" and "life force"... until they are about to die, whence they all instantly convert into agnosticism. "Commonly found or used" differs greatly from being "easy to get", such as human placents, or "rare but highly valued", such as gold and jewlry regarding wealth, or in TCM, deer and tiger penis and ox bezoar. And unfortunately "ex" does not mean "friend" as you just called her- :( PPdd ( talk) 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
“What kind of violence might be done to a system of knowledge when met and deconstructed by another? Is it possible to understand an epistemological world vastly removed from one’s own either in time or space? This question, which lies at the heart of any attempt to understand local epistemologies… (footnote: By “local epistemology” I mean a way of understanding the study of knowledge-making that acknowledges that there are different forms of epistemology, i.e., equally justifiable systems of knowledge that operate on different principles or in different contexts… See Ian Hacking “Historical Epistemology”… and in “styles of reasoning” – “Historical Ontology”… These and related approaches acknowledge a phenomenon that I also explore here: there are a plurality of justifiable systems of gathering knowledge about the world. /footnote)"
Clerk note: Your comments
here were both unnecessary and unhelpful.
Mathsci had not even been mentioned on the talk page prior to your bringing him up. When you brought him up, you did so only to make a snide remark about him ("I don't think Mathsci made a single post in that entire mess that didn't involve accusing someone of being a fringe advocate") that did not contribute meaningfully to any discussion. Your other comments in that thread were reasonable, but that reference to Mathsci could have been avoided easily without detracting from your points.
NW (
Talk) 03:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 01:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
That rule doesn't apply to moving comments that are put in the wrong place. Go ahead and report me if it makes you feel better.— Chowbok ☠ 23:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Ludwigs. I see that wiki life is as lively as ever for you. I was wondering if you know if there is a policy about users contacting other users with offers (thinly disguised spam). Just wondering if you've come across any discussions on this? thanks. -- stmrlbs| talk 07:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs - take good care of yourself. Do all that de-stressing stuff (you probably know the stuff I mean, lol!) If nothing else, get out into some open countryside (or a deserted beach or some real forest) by yourself, turn off the cell/mobile, stare at the horizon and just stop moving (apart from breathing, of course, it's important to remember to breathe ... ). Give that 20 minutes. Then break into gentle stroll, or lie-in-sun, or sit on log / rock / anything else handy. Take a full day. Better still, two days. Pesky ( talk) 16:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Please cut out the personal remarks. My involvement in the WP:SHERIFF proposal has nothing to do with you. You are alleging bad motives on my part and there is no justification for it. If you have a problem with my editing then please say so explicitly in an appropriate forum. Will Beback talk 07:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
There's no need to mention the R&I case again on the case pages; it clearly isn't helping matters. NW ( Talk) 14:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a note. Brangifer is very quick to cry COI. See here He has a clear history of trying to eliminate "fringe" editors via wikilaw rather than negotiating edits. By his definition, I would be COI for virtually all "fringe" topics. Tom Butler ( talk) 01:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)