User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ludwigs2. 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 1

←

Archive 3

→

Your comments would be appreciated

As someone who has contributed to a thread about terminology on WT:NPOV/FAQ, I'd like to point you to a thread that attempts to bring the issue to some sort of closure, here. It's important we try and get to the end of this debate, so your comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. Ben (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration #Use of "myth" in religious articles

I have not listed you specifically as an "interested party", but, as you have made a number of comments recently, if you wish to add yourself to the list I have no objection.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re your statement: Those are minutes, not seconds. Ilkali (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

lol - I thought something looked funny about that. I was literally sitting here thinking 'geez, that really can't be four seconds, can it?' yeow. thank you; I'll fix that.

it's true what they say, you know. get past a certain level of education and you literally forget how to tie your shoes. If I read another book I'm going to need a frakking nanny... --Ludwigs2 03:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Modelref

Can you add supermodels.nl?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

well, turns out there's a spam-block issue that needs to be resolved (apparently someone has been spamming WP with this site, so....). let's see what the SB people say about it. --Ludwigs2 22:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Safari (from NPOV discussion)

You're a mac-person (fanboy is what I've heard used)? I have no reliable sources, but I believe that Mac users are substantially more intelligent and wise than average. I just realized you may use Safari on a PC. Uh oh. I might have insulted you. ;) SciMedKnowledge (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

fanboy isn't a term I've heard in the US (sounds more British English to my ear). I have heard 'Macophiliac', 'Mac-head', and 'MacNugget', if that helps. but yes, I'm a devotee of Steve Jobs (me and a few others get together and worship on every date that's a power of 2, from 2:08 to 4:16), and yes, we are substantially more intelligent and wise (not to mention attractive) than your average user. There's actually a program you can download that demonstrates that, but (go figure...) it only runs on Macs.

God love it: I'm looking forward to the day when people forget all about race, nationality, religion, and etc. and pour all their energy into promoting their preferred operating system. that's something you can have fun fighting about, without anybody ever getting killed. --Ludwigs2 21:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I got a good belly laugh out of that. MAC USERS UNITE AGAINST THE MAN. SciMedKnowledge (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Template

Ludwigs, I did not accuse you of antisemitism, or of any ill will. Just my habitual sarcasm. Sorry about trampling on your feelings with my hobnail work boots. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm. I'm sorry as well. truth be told, I had a bit of a headache and I over-reacted. no hard feelings on my end, and I hope none on yours. --Ludwigs2 22:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Information suppression and conspiracy to edit war

NPOV was challenged in the following article here where it appears an attempt is being made to suppress information.

It's very conspiratorial as they have actually openly called for edit war, this is their words "call to arms." See here. There is no reason to conspire to suppress information and NPOV is there?Wikkidd (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude... you managed to give me a headache in three sentences. I have no idea what you're talking about, and no idea why you decided to talk to me about it. calm down, use small caps, drop all the conspiracy talk and all the hysteria, and explain what's going on. or go someplace else, because I have zero interest in listening to you rage. --Ludwigs2 05:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I read your page. I read some of the controversies at various articles. I think I'm going to either scream, go insane, or start another easier project like fixing the US banking system. Does everything around require warfare? I am still willing to fight over the only true operating system, but that's real passion. A headache in three sentences may require a lobotomy. SciMedKnowledge (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

it's the detachment. most people have this sort of vague idea that anonymity promotes reason and equality (on the grounds that if no one knows who or what you are, they can't be prejudiced against you, and will default to discussing pertinent issues rationally). Nothing could be farther from the truth. This environment breeds ideology, paranoia, and aggressive, self-righteous, anti-social micro-dramas. Wikkidd is talking to me as though I'm deeply embroiled in his worldview; he's doing that because there isn't enough real contact on wikipedia for him to know what my worldview is, so he has to project something on me - and that's pretty much the way 90% of the interactions up here run. personally I find it fascinating; the closest analogy I can think of is like trying to have a New England Town Hall meeting where all the participants are blindfolded and tied to their chairs. and maybe dosed with a touch of LSD.

remember, the vast majority of Wikipedians do the WikiGnome thing: quietly twiddling away at pages without fanfare. if it's making you crazy, you can always kiss Dodge City goodbye and find yourself a little patch of articles to tend off in the boondocks. --Ludwigs2 06:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikkidd - 2 of his sockpuppets have been blocked also. dougweller (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

ah, yeah, not surprising. I guess the Workers Revolt of Wikidom will have to wait for another day... --Ludwigs2 16:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for sorting out my talk page I have a feeling it might have been done deliberatly as vandalism by an IP, but I will AGF anyway thanks a lot. BigDunc^Talk 19:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

no problem.

I'll look into the vandalism concern, though - if someone did that on purpose they likely did it to other people as well. --Ludwigs2 19:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was vandalism - the IP threw in a snarky comment in a weird place that broke the CSS. you could just roll it back to the way it was before his post (or I'm happy to do that, if you can't for some reason). --Ludwigs2 19:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I reverted back to a previous version what was the comment as I can't see anything in the diff it might give me a clue to who it was a couple of indef blocked socks have targeted my page before thanks for your help. BigDunc^Talk 19:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

here's the diff where things got mucked up - [1]. he doesn't seem to have added anything, just excised bits of text which mucked things up. the only other thing he's done is a test edit on Wes Brown. I went ahead and restored the version that was there before his edit (I assume you want that 'say no to flagged revisions' thing in the lower right corner...) --Ludwigs2 20:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah fair play thanks a lot :-) BigDunc^Talk 21:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

supermodels.nl

Supermodels.nl was blacklisted because it, apparently, contained malware. No-one has followed up on that, and the site is still on the list? Do you think that issue is resolved, if so, it can be removed and you can use it to hearts content. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I just checked it using Google's safe browsing diagnostic feature - no malware reports in the last 90 days. I'll post that over at the spam block page and see if there's agreement about unlisting it. thanks.

--Ludwigs2 21:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The instructions look good. I keep thinking about adding an Askmen.com link and may try to do so myself someday.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

let me know if you need any help figuring out the instructions (or feel free to make them clearer if you find them opaque). --Ludwigs2 13:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Selling Missouri

Hey, saw your comment on ANI, and just thought I'd say, well, we've already let A-B get bought out, so... umrguy 42 02:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC) (an ex-patriate Missourian) :D

Who bought A-B? tell me it's not a Japanese company - if Bud starts tasting like Kirin I'm going to be very sad... --Ludwigs2 20:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It was InBev last year... upstart punks wanders off muttering to himself umrguy 42 23:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Taijitu

Yes, it's a sockpuppet of ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ/Julius Ceasarus From Primus. If the tag additions were valid, by all means, add them back. Just make the tags are added properly – I noticed the IP had made a few mistakes in his edit. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I noticed that as well; thought I fixed them all. but no, I don't want to stir things up there right now. maybe in a couple of months. thanks for clarifying.

--Ludwigs2 06:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Woops

That disruption tag was accidental.--Bobert300 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

ok, no problem then. it just seriously confused me. :-) --Ludwigs2 21:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Something pretty for your shelf

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For doing reasonably thankless technical work behind the scenes and suffering fools graciously, etc. etc. and all that other work you do to keep things even keeled and being generally a part of the solution ... I hereby award you this shiny barnstar that will look pretty and inspire others to also look for the high road. Keep up the good work! -- Banjeboi 10:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Welcome template

Yes, I would certainly appreciate some help with the welcome template. I think I'll create a user subpage and build it there. ~~Tabs~~The collapsible tables seem like a good idea. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

User subpage built here: User:Tempodivalse/Welcome. You're welcome to help edit it, I need help on finding the correct collapsible page templates. Cheers, ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

well, you can use collapsible table or collapsible divs. the reason you can't quite make a tabs-like structure is that there's no hook for closing one collapsed element when you open another. I'll go and take a look at the template as I get a chance.

--Ludwigs2 02:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Tables

Hey Ludwigs2, I tried recreating the table from List of tallest buildings in New York City on Cornish Wikipedia at Rol a dhrehevyansow an uhella yn Cita Ebron Nowyth. Why is it not showing up the same? How can I rectify this? Thanks! --Caponer (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

my best guess (since I can't even come close to reading the language) is that Cornish Wikipedia either hasn't implemented the 'wikitable' css class, or it implemented it under a different name. on English Wikipedia I'd look in MediaWiki:Common.css (which I first found by looking at Help:Cascading_style_sheets#Levels_of_CSS_settings) and I'd see this code:

/* wikitable/prettytable class for skinning normal tables */
table.wikitable,
table.prettytable {
    margin: 1em 1em 1em 0;
    background: #f9f9f9;
    border: 1px #aaa solid;
    border-collapse: collapse;
}
.wikitable th, .wikitable td,
.prettytable th, .prettytable td {
    border: 1px #aaa solid;
    padding: 0.2em;
}
.wikitable th,
.prettytable th {
    background: #f2f2f2;
    text-align: center;
}
.wikitable caption,
.prettytable caption {
    font-weight: bold;
}

can you find the same page on Cornish Wikipedia? if the code is there, just substitute in whatever name they use. if it's not there, you could build the CSS structure yourself, but that would be a pain - probably better to go to the village pump (technical) and ask someone to implement it. --Ludwigs2 00:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

On Prince Mikhail Cantacuzene! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProperlyRaised (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Thanks for your comments, but I wanted to clarify something. The "bit about chemistry coming from Alchemy" is not due to me, it was the original wording on the page when I arrived. It's also a well known historical event, but one which I don't know much about. I wanted to preserve the original from the pruning down that went on after I added a whole bunch of topics to the list.

The argument on that page is not so much about the topics, it is mostly about personality and, at least for me, the philosophy of "precisionism". The precisionist editors (Hrafn and Kenosis) are under the impression that they should delete something whenever it doesn't match a source nearly verbatim, even if common sense and accuracy suggests that it should stay. I think this type of philosophy is counterproductive, dangerous, and not in line with the common sense ethos of Wikipedia. I don't know where you stand on this issue, but this is the subtext for me.Likebox (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

well, I didn't want to get into it, but alchemy wasn't pseudoscience. it was what passed for science in its day. a modern alchemist would be guilty of pseudoscience, but projecting our current understanding of chemistry backwards through time to call alchemy pseudoscience is just odd. we might as well accuse the ancient Greeks of 'pseudo-math' because they didn't understand non-euclidean geometries. this is my basic problem with the way pseudoscience is handled by some editors on wikipedia: they have a rigid and myopic (and ultimately incorrect) preconception about what 'science' is, and anyone who suggests they might want to think it through a bit is treated like a vandal. you can call it 'personality' if you like; I think it's intellectual laziness, mixed with a good bit of arrogance.

don't get me wrong, I don't mind the arrogance part (that would be hypocritical of me...

). but if one is going to be arrogant, one should make the effort to be intelligently arrogant. --Ludwigs2 06:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if what i said was bothersome to you, i have apologized and explained in a way which i hope you will see as sincerely intended to be friendly and helpful. I truly did not intend to come across as irritating, please accept my honest apology and my wishes to be useful and considerate. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 03:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry as well. I'll respond over there, but first let me say (here) that I have a bit of a hair-trigger on pseudoscience issues on wikipedia; I know it, and I'm working on it, but it still pops out every now and then. when I first started editing those kinds of articles (trying in my own mind to write towards neutrality) I got mugged by a handful of anti-fringe editors (even getting gamed into receiving a handful of blocks), and so I learned to take a very aggressive posture to keep them at bay. it works well for that purpose, but it's not good for dealing with reasonable editors in more normal contexts. Wikipedia... Dude! --Ludwigs2 04:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your elegant {{Details}} solution to my complication of the lead sentence in Taoism. Well done. Keahapana (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

my pleasure. sometimes it just takes a fresh pair of eyes.

--Ludwigs2 04:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a Turing machine

Share and enjoy (it is a redirect to IAR in case some friendly admin. thinks the redirect is unlikely to be useful and deletes it). - Eldereft (cont.) 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

lol - I never would have thought of that.

thanks! --Ludwigs2 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

List of PSs

Ludwigs, please read the sources! As I pointed on the list talk page, Popper referred to psychoanalysis and astrology as pseudoscience, but never referred to Darwinism as pseudoscience. And even his statement about falsifiability w.r.t. "Darwinism" is a position he quickly reversed of his own accord. Could you please go correct the last edit. Sheese. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I did it myself. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

you see, that's exactly what I'm talking about. there's no guidelines for this page - you all simply wikilawyer perspectives in or out based on your preconceptions. according to the stated criteria of the page, Darwinism belongs in. it doesn't matter whether Popper recanted, and it doesn't matter whether he actually used the word 'pseudoscience'.

My original concern when I started this discussion was to get some decent structure and some decent criteria for inclusion to apply to this page. why the hell are you opposing that? --Ludwigs2 20:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Very WP:POINTY, Ludwigs. Thought you were supposed to behave yourself around pseudoscience? . . dave souza, talk 20:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

again, Dave, what I want is some decent structure and some decent criteria for inclusion to apply to the page. what problem do you have with that, exactly? you can bitch about me all you like, but (according to the page rationale) I have a perfect right to add Darwinism there. if you don't like that, change the criteria. --Ludwigs2 21:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, they are different and supported differently by the same source and other sources. Make a case on the talk page, don't disrupt wikipedia. I'm not interested particularly as to whether these are both included or not, but your equating of them is incorrect. Verbal chat 21:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

wonderful. I make a comment to Kenosis, and Dave responds; I make a comment to Dave and Verbal responds. do you guys coordinate your clothes every morning as well? yeesh.

Don't accuse me of disruption when I am simply adding content that I think matches the stated purpose of the page. --Ludwigs2 22:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

lol. I suppose it's true that I have yet to get into a fight with Dave in any of the areas where our WP presence intersects-- "knock on wood" as they say. ;-) Ludwigs, while I agree the list is a POV tarpit and think it should be trashed and burned (if only I could sell that to enough editors) the main problem here is that things included in the list must be sourced preoperly. We're not experts on scientific method and the demarcation problem, and if any of us are, such synthesis as is being attempted with Popper and Darwinism will need to be published elsewhere in such a manner as to reasonably pass muster w.r.t. WP:V#Reliable_sources, prior to being considered for inclusion in WP. WP:SYN makes the point explicitly enough that as WP editors we can't put together Source A with Source B to arrive at Position C. And after those basic thresholds are dealt with, there is quite arguably still an issue w.r.t. WP:WEIGHT. Anyways, I'm still wondering whether and what I'll advocate on the new proceeding WP:Articles for deletion I sense the list is here to stay. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

you know, really, I don't object to the article per se. but wp:syn cuts both ways here. granting that I know a hell of a lot more than most people about scientific methodology, and have a tendency to draw on that more than I should (at least in Talk), it's also synthesis to ignore the basic tenets of science and make simplistic arguments by association, which couldn't otherwise be made through reliable sources. Putting psychoanalysis on this page, the way its been put on this page, de facto reduces it to the level of crystal healing, a comparison that no reputable scientist would ever make in a public forum (not where his scientific reputation was at stake). it's just crapulence by a handful of editors who have a low opinion of psychotherapy and are going out of their way to make it look bad. you're probably right, the page probably won't get deleted. but if I can build up a decent consensus on the deletion page that the page needs more focus, I can use that as leverage to fix the damned thing. either way works fine for me. --Ludwigs2 01:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

RE "Putting psychoanalysis on this page, the way its been put on this page, de facto reduces it to the level of crystal healing . . . " : Agreed. Which is in part why I've argued that WP:WEIGHT is an important issue w.r.t. the "list". ... Kenosis (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

so how do we get other editors to agree to that? I'm sorry, but I'm really tired of having to do battle just to get those die-hard skeptics to recognize common sense. --Ludwigs2 03:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like the current formulation of the entry, fix it. I am sure there are positive things that can be said about psychoanalysis to change the impression. But I am not motivated to dig them up. I am motivated by resisting your POV pushing to keep psychoanalysis out. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

you consider the effort to to keep psychoanalysis from being equated with laundry balls a POV? I'm going to assume good faith that you've simply misunderstood my position, and leave that without further comment. Please consider your words more carefully in the future. --Ludwigs2 14:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you announced the AfD on the talk page?

Have you prominently announced the PS list's AfD on its talk page? That should have been done immediately. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't. sorry, it's only the second time I've done an AfD like that, and I'm not too up on the system. I think everyone is aware (because of the main page notice), so there's probably no reason at this point, but are there any other details I've neglected? --Ludwigs2 06:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just read some of your other comments about me, bull: you're stepping over the line. please keep your comments focussed on the debate, and leave your personal opinions about me out of it. I've run into this kind of emotional response from too many skeptics on wikipedia, and frankly I no longer have any respect for it. consider that a fair warning, and the only one you'll get. --Ludwigs2 06:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Modelref

Template:Modelref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

CSS formatting

Not sure what CSS formatting is, but if you are complaining about my header, I do not agree to remove my awards.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Tony, no... I don't want to remove your rewards. I just want to fix them so that they flow properly on the page (not overlapping the other text, and so on). let me go ahead and try a fix. if you don't like it, you can always undo it.

If you know how to rearrange them to avoid the problem you mention go ahead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I like to change the number of tigers in a row so that the page looks like it needs more tigers. When the last row is complete, people are less likely to add new tigers. How can I change it back to 6 tigers per row?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

use the 'perrow' option (see the change I just made, to restore 6 per row). if you want to encourage adds, though, I'd suggest you add a dummy image at the end with a big question mark and the caption 'What picture can you add?' or something like that. more direct than just leaving an empty space, and allows the browser to space the images properly for different sized screens. --Ludwigs2 16:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice at ANI re Dignity

Hello, Ludwigs2. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at [[WP:ANI]] regarding the article:Dignity. Thank you.

PYRRHON

talk 01:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I will forgo any Dispute Resolution process at this time. I accept that the average reader of the article is not likely to find fault with your version. In a few days perhaps, I will put a list on Dignity's talkpage of the changes that I think the article should have. Perhaps the list will interest other editors. If you want to ignore the list, that's fine. If you want to discuss the list, that's fine. I am satisfied that I have done my best to make a good article.

PYRRHON

talk 22:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Chinese music box

The box is looking good, with a few comments I made. Can you make a section that could feature Chinese Musicians' Association? That's an important one. Or should it go up top? Badagnani (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ah, I can see you just did that. the other thing I could do would be to add in a section (down by 'awards', 'festivals', and etc) for notable music organizations. which do you think would be better? --Ludwigs2 02:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Internet homicide

I noticed that you commented at the AfD for this article, and did not like the name -- and you seemed to think the piece was only about serial killers, which it is not. The subject is literally internet-facilitated homicide, of which serial killings form only a small part. As such, it is a parallel article to the entire crime-by-contact-venue series of articles, such as Internet suicide, Internet crime, Internet terrorism, Cyber crime, Lonely hearts killer, Vehicular homicide, and Online predator.

Perhaps, to be consistent with the above list, Lonely hearts killer should be renamed Lonely hearts homicide -- but that term, like Serial killer and Spree killer, is a one of long standing in the media.

Cordially, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. what I'm questioning is the 'internet' part of all this. even in your list above, which is supposed to be 'crime-by-contact-venue series', all but two of the venues are internet related, and of the exceptions one might be internet related. and note the difference between all the 'internet' items and 'vehicular homicide'. vehicular homicide means using a car to kill someone; if someone used a car to drive around and look for someone to kill, that certainly wouldn't be considered vehicular homicide. and yet we reverse that logic for the internet. no one ever killed anyone with the internet itself.

the whole page is playing off cyber-fear (the common presumption that the internet is a bad and dangerous place, filled with predators). this last guy (markoff) was fairly tame as murderers go: he killed one person and attacked a couple of others. if he had found his victims some other way he'd never have been more than local news. but because he used the internet, the mass media can tap into all sort of new avenues of paranoia and feed it to us with a spoon to boost their ratings. should wikipedia be doing the same thing? the internet thing is really meaningless, and the article just encourages OR as people try to make a thin, meaningless set of connections mean more than it does. --Ludwigs2 07:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's an element of fear-mongering to the media's and crime writers' coverage of these killers. That's not a reason not to have an article on the subject, though; instead that's a good reason to have a source in the area noting that, if there is one. You seem to acknowledge that his use of the internet makes him notable to the media, you're just saying that it shouldn't make someone notable - I agree, nevertheless, he perhaps unfortunately is. I agree "internet homicide" doesn't follow the same construction as "vehicular homicide." It wasn't a wikipedian that coined it, though (and how often does English uniformly apply the same construction?). Likewise, Wikipedia isn't prohibited from having articles about meaningless things; I wouldn't go so far as to call it meaningless, but it doesn't seem to be of cosmic significance, true. Where is the original research, though, when these killers in fiction and fact are repeatedly being named "internet killers" or some variation thereon, and the repeated use of the internet to select victims has been noted by writers? Шизомби (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as a question about meaningfulness. people make whatever meanings they want to make out of things, c'est la vie. I see this as a question of knowledge structures. the information in a well-formed article should be coherent and bounded, otherwise the article really doesn't have a topic. the problem with the 'internet killer/homicide' thing is that it's really an artistic motif masquerading as a fact (a technological equivalent of Freddie Kruger, or vampires, or Grendel, or any other 'Beast-who-lurks-in-the-dark' tale), and artistic motifs are mostly interested in effect, and hence have very few boundaries. I mean, the comparison with vehicular manslaughter is right on point. 'Vehicular manslaughter' means using a vehicle to kill someone, and it has a very clear, unambiguous set of criteria for inclusion and exclusion. 'Internet killer' effectively means 'any normal murder that can be made more gruesome by drawing on internet fears', and so it draws together a bunch of cases that have almost no other common thread. that far, I don't think I have an objection (that's just a goofy list, like any other goofy list on wikipedia). however, this particular article is putting a good bit of effort into making the case that this non-existent common thread actually exists, which is original research. I kind of suspect that if we weeded out all the improper synthesis and weasel wording in the article, what we'd be left with is a couple of people talking about the myth of the internet killer, and a cockeyed list of unrelated murders that all (more or less incidentally) happened to use the internet (somehow), and have only a tangential relationship to the mythos. --Ludwigs2 07:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added to my comments there. I happen to agree with Lugwigs thinking here and more. Ludwig, I came here originally to let you know I commented about your comments and at the time wasn't sure if it was you who had stated the the internet doesn't kill. Well, now I do know you are the one so no need for me to ask now. :) Anyways, I hope you are well. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your (Ludwigs2) critical definition to some extent, but the way it's been used so far is more narrow than that. The killers have used the internet to lure victims, and the media has usually nicknamed them after that fact. Pretty simple, and a bounded list. The one special case I see is the film Untraceable, where the killer uses a webpage counter as a trigger (from what I recall he also used the internet as a lure, promising the sale of a model train, and using a dating website). It's possible to conceive of other ways the internet could be used in some connection with a murder other than luring victims, as you or someone mentioned if the killer learned of an affair through the internet and killed the spouse, or if the killer sent e-mails to the police or media about his crimes or blogged about his crimes or whatever. If such a person wasn't being called an "internet killer" by some outside source, it would to my mind be original research to include those unless the connections were being made in some other way by some outside source. I think the complaint about "internet killer" suggesting a killer who kills the internet is cute, but again that is the term being repeatedly used and I think that just shows certain limitations of English. The film Lesbian Vampire Killers for example could mean several different things, lesbians who kill vampires, lesbian vampires who kill, killers who kill lesbian vampires, etc. That there might be something better to call it isn't an argument against having an article, but having a different title, though to some extent it's not Wikipedia's place to come up with better labels for things than the ones in use. Шизомби (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

@ Schizombie: which metaphor do you prefer - that you're trying to make life imitate art, or that you're putting the cart before the horse? People have made some nice scary films about internet killers, true, but should we be engaged in the act of trying to give those films an ontological basis? wikipedia doesn't promote neologisms in other areas, what justification is there for promoting this neologism here? and careful, you're talking to a Buffy fan - lesbian vampire killers has a concrete meaning in that context.

--Ludwigs2 16:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so sure I agree with/know what you're saying about the connection between the fictional and factual people labeled internet killers. Wikipedia is allowed to use neologisms, and there are secondary sources treating the subject of internet killers, to my satisfaction at least. I like the Buffy movie and even have the pressbook for it, but never got around to checking out the show, but there's a course about it at my university. Шизомби (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

4chan ANI thread

Not really wanting to draw out that thread any longer (DFTT), but your last post there was the most brilliant thing I've read all day. Thanks for a genuine belly laugh. Durova^Charge! 15:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

--Ludwigs2 16:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Commonsense

Let me know if you really do want to start that wikiproject, I would join in a heartbeat. I think it would really help alot of editors if they had a place to go and say "this is what I believe, and I think its commonsense, how does everyone else think?". That way others can say yes or no and give suggestions on how that editor can convince others on a discussion page that may not believe in commonsense. I know I've been in discussions where I just wish I could stand up and say "Ok, you may not believe that this is commonsense, but here's 15 other editors who do! Argue with them!".Camelbinky (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I will. I need to look into it a bit more though - I'm trying to gauge how much work goes into creating and maintaining a project like that. give me a few days on it.

--Ludwigs2 06:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

user:Wadester16 created Wikipedia:WikiProject Capital District and did a great job, he might be someone to ask about how much it takes to create and maintain a project.Camelbinky (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and proposed a change to Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines based heavily on the 4th bulletpoint on the wikiproject common sense page. Basically it says that rules should not be used in a discussion to override common sense.Camelbinky (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

oh, man... stick your hand in a hornet's nest while you're at it.

--Ludwigs2 01:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, feel free to comment on the page in support if you want, maybe itll fly under the radar and and if no seems to object to it we can put it in there and see if it stays. I personally would love to stick it to those users who go around and quote the rules like they are the ten commandments handed down by the wiki-god and be able to type "Oh yea, I've got a freakin' rule for you- Dont quote rules in a discussion to override common sense jack ass!".Camelbinky (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I will, if a discussion gets going, but I'd rather sit back and see what people say, first. I suspect the way it's written might be too loose for policy; it's ok to assert a particular viewpoint about wikipedia on a project page, but a bit more questionable to assert it for everyone. best case, it will get rewritten into something a bit less open-minded.

I'll note in passing that it's usually a good idea to assume that other people have reasons for what they're doing, even if what they're doing seems idiotic. that's for your own sanity: if you assume they have reasons, you can start trying to figure out what those reasons are; if you don't make that assumption all you can do is get pissed. I'm not saying the assumption will help resolve problems, but no sense wandering around wikipedia with your head in a black cloud all the time.

--Ludwigs2 05:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:2009 US swine flu outbreak table

In this edit, you removed the {{navbar}} from Template:2009 US swine flu outbreak table. In future edits to that and other templates, please be careful not to remove this important template, as without it, editing the template from the articles in which it is transcluded becomes a real hassle. It adds that "v d e" to the bottom which really help out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mendaliv: please read the talk page. I removed the navbar because it was interfering with the sortable table. I'll add it back in properly in a few minutes. --Ludwigs2 13:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, but in the future please indicate something like that in your edit summary, particularly as the talk page comment only really makes sense now that you explain how it matters. While I can understand the need to temporarily remove it for technical reasons, a template as highly visible as the swine flu numbers template should always be easy to update and discuss for viewers of the main article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

will do. the navbar's back in, incidentally. --Ludwigs2 14:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sent you an e-mail

Want to know if you received it.

Thanks, Ward20 (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably - I don't check that email frequently, but it's reliable. let me go look, and I'll respond from there. --Ludwigs2 00:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comparison article

Thank you for taking notice.

I usually enjoy the oppurtunity to work with my fellow wikipedia editors, and I hope my experience with you may be similar.

My main objection to splitting the article(which would effectively delete it) is that this a topic on its own(as several papers were published about it). In addition, it survived an earlier AFD, so deleting it(and dispersing its information elsewhere) might seem contary to the decision of the ocmmunity.

I haven't worked on the article in a while as I am currently engaged in some dispute resolution and working on the gigantic Economic history of China revamp in my userpage. I welcome you to take a look over this article and helping to improve it in any way.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

well, we'll see. my general concern with these issues is the bubble effect: things that are minor side avenues in academic discussions often take on a life of their own on wikipedia because they get presented in a bubble, without their normal context. it's the same effect that can get you shouting at your girl/boyfriend in a crowded restaurant - you get so wrapped up in whatever argument you're having that you forget that the rest of the world doesn't care to hear it. may be the case here; may not be. at any rate, pardon my gruffness. I talk that way sometimes to get people's attention, but I'd never really do something like that. sneaky, but effective...

--Ludwigs2 02:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Headsup: a discussion wrt the possibility of renaming

"Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks.

--Ludwigs2 20:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

N/p! Btw, I have just now suggested a new name here: Talk:Internet homicide#Proposal. You're of obviously impressive abilities in analysis and argumentation (and thus what you say tends to carry a lot of weight), so, Ludwigs2, if we'd be so lucky that you've a spare moment to comment in this talkpage subsection I'd greatly appreciate it. ↜Just M E here , now 07:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi, first I responded to your proposal at Internet homicide. Second, who is the Timothy Leary you are talking about, is he listed at another article? The reason I ask is I did a search of Timothy Leary and came up with someone that had a lot of controversaries, which I am assuming is not who you are talking about. I'd be interested in reading more about this if there is some place he is talked about. By the way, some good posting going on with you. I'm impressed, not that my opinions means anything but I thought I would tell you since a lot of negatives are usually the norm so I think saying something good about someone is a good thing to do. Thanks in advance, I'll be online either later or tomorrow morning. Having some RL problems so I'm off to lay down. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Leary - Public intellectual/LSD advocate from the '60s. he videotaped his suicide (from an overdose of drugs) and (so I thought) webcast it live. that last bit doesn't seem to appear in the article, though, so maybe I'm mistaken. or maybe the article is? I'll look into that. at any rate, he's got an interesting story: smart guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. the more draconian US drug laws exist because Leary (when he testified before congress) was naive enough to assume that congress would approach the issue with the same intellectual/philosophical perspective that he himself used. Ted Kennedy sandbagged him, utterly and completely.

Ah - a quick check shows that he promised' to webcast it, but his friends videotaped it instead, and haven't yet put it online... ok

thank you for the compliment, and yes, your opinion does mean a good bit.

I hope you're not feeling too badly, and I hope it passes quickly. --Ludwigs2 16:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi Ludwig, i noticed your name in the Help Template talkpage and was wondering if you could help me with my new template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:History_of_Somalia as you can see when i used on the following article: Ajuuraan State, this weird [noinclude] code showed up at the start of article[2] but even when i deleted that code from the template it did not disappear so i'm lost and i hope you can help me with this problem, thanks! --Scoobycentric (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

you just forgot to close the table in the template, that's all. I've fixed it on the template. you really should use the standard {{infobox}} template for this - it makes tasks like this much easier and removes the possibility of errors like this. --Ludwigs2 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast reply Ludwig! and appreciate the tip about the infobox template(i'm a bit overwhelmed by all the codes in that article but i think if read it a few times, i will eventually process it all) --Scoobycentric (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

it's actually pretty straight forward. read the docs and play with it a little, you'll see. the only tricky thing might be if you want to change the color scheme (which requires a little CSS knowledge). let me know if you need help with that. --Ludwigs2 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ludwig, i seem to have another case of the [noinclude] code showing in one of my Templates.[3] I mimicked you and closed the template but it still shows[4] any assistance would be greatly appreciated! --Scoobycentric (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! --Scoobycentric (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Tao Te Ching

Hi Ludwigs2, I notice you have deleted the link I posted to a new translation of the Tao Te Ching with the comment "this seems to be a personal, web-based interpretation (unlike the others (all, I believe standard published texts). self-published sources aren't generally allowed". I don't agree with the removal. I believe that this interpretation (like all the others are interpretations as well) shows the actual context of the Tao Te Ching when living like the one who wrote it. I think this really has an educational value, because it makes understandable what is talked about in the Tao Te Ching, and how it relates to present-day life. I hope you will reconcider putting back the URL, Regards --Controle2 (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to talk about it, but let's discuss it on the article's talk page, where other editors can give their opinions as well. --Ludwigs2 18:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I made a new topic on the acticle's talk page --Controle2 (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OR talk

Greetings Ludwigs2. Have any thoughts on this? You are very active on this page! --Nvineeth (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, CG, I'm tired of being attacked by the stupid trolls that lurk under the skeptic's bridge, and a bit sour on the project as a whole, so I'm just not interested in participating with anything for the time being, maybe in a few weeks. --Ludwigs2 15:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia talk:CON#Ethical. –xeno^talk 07:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You've confused ethics with ethical obligations, but fortunately for you I don't really care. --Ludwigs2 00:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is how it is being interpreted in the present case; that we have an ethical obligation to hide these images and thus the word ethical in the consensus policy means we should heed that line of argument. If that is not how the word "ethical" is supposed to be interpreted, the confusion at least demonstrates that it's sufficiently ambiguous and ought be left out. Anyways, I'm not faulting you or anything, I just wanted to let you know that I floated your name. –xeno^talk 04:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

answered over at the other page. --Ludwigs2 07:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and attention to the issue. Just ftr, I'm not sure who you were addressing when you were saying "you"/"your". I assume the people who are advancing the argument-from-ethics. I am merely trying to act as a mediator and am trying to keep my own feelings and biases detached from my contributions in this arena.

FWIW, I'm still not so sure about including the word "ethical" in the consensus policy, but if consensus emerges to include it, please feel free. Likewise, initiating an RFC and adding to Template:Cent might be a good way to drum up parties disinterested with the present case to comment, if you are so inclined. –xeno^talk 16:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I was addressing that you/your to you: you decided to make that change to policy without thinking the issue through or discussing the pros and cons of it, which means you get to decide whether you've made a mistake, and you get to fix it if you did. I simply don't care. as I keep saying, I'm sour on the project and not interested in participating. I'm just checking in every few days to see if someone's left a note.

there are not many people on wikipedia that I am inclined to think well of, and I've given up on giving wikipedians the benefit of the doubt (because I have been almost uniformly disappointed in that regard). you seem to want me to give you credit as a balanced and reasonable editor: that may in fact be true, and I'm happy to grant you that when I decide that it's the case, but if you're expecting AGF, forget it. tried that, didn't even get a friggin' tee-shirt for the effort. --Ludwigs2 19:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I still think you're confused as to who is arguing what, but since you don't really seem to care that much I'll just let it drop. Thanks again for your comments on the situation. –xeno^talk 20:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:En connect

Template:En connect has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

AFD

Actually, my work on this article I believe will be largely limited today because I am working on another article which is more important. Nonetheless I do believe that it is an error to delete this article. I'll try to maintain the discussion structure as best as I can.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, for your advice. It looks like the AFD is about to close soon anyways most likely with either a keep or no consensus( as the number of keep votes exceed delete), and the article has been dramatically improved. For your note about my "aggressiveness" in salvaging the AFD, I admit I take AFDs quite seriously and work constantly on them (just like when I promoted a stub to a GA). I will be taking a short wikibreak due to Christmas. Happy holidays!! Teeninvestor (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

good on all counts. I don't mind the article remaining if it's sufficiently revised and referenced. but please, in the future, do try to be a bit less aggressive in defending these kinds of things. it's fine for you to make your point, but when you do it with too much repetition and force everyone starts to resent it (like you're trying to cram something down people's throats). --Ludwigs2 01:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, do you think the article's current draft version still suffer from OR and Synthesis problems? If not, please state your opinion to User:Spartaz, so the article can be restored.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Inbrief

After looking at the template, I think it should be position1, position2, position3 etc. (or a similar name) instead of persons. That way many users with the same position can edit the same column. What do you think? Sole Soul (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

do you mean you want multiple position statements in each column? e.g, the column is for the position, and different users can make different statement blocks within it, or the block is for the position, with one statement that multiple users can edit, maybe with a line et the end of the block for the editing users to put there sig on? --Ludwigs2 22:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The latter (the block is for the position). I think we should limit it to only 2 main positions about a single subject e.g, "support adding criticism section" and "against adding criticism section". Sole Soul (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

like this? I personally like the option for multiple positions (dichotomies are really restrictive in some cases), but it will be easy enough to restrict it later if we decide to.

also, it might be worthwhile to expand this - rather that have it all in this box, we could set it up so that each position creates its own subpage to the talk page, where you can make a brief statement (which appears in the box), a longer statement for more detailed considerations, and a list of endorsing signatures that also gets transferred to the box. we can play with that later if the idea catches on, though. --Ludwigs2 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I like that. Can you add a space at the top for instructions, something like: Briefly, summarize the arguments for the main positions in a specific dispute. Sole Soul (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I tested it for easiness at User:Sole_Soul/test. I added texts from 2 random articles :) I really like it. I cannot thank you enough. What is the next step? Sole Soul (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

up to you and everyone else. how the template develops from here is a function of what people want from it. talk it out a bit on the proposals page and see what would be useful. --Ludwigs2 23:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we make the endorsements without the time stamp for 2 reasons: 1)The positions are continually updated. 2)It take space. Or may be get rid of the endorsements altogether because one user could summarize (or agree with parts of) both positions. Sole Soul (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

timestamps aren't needed - you can just use a text user name or a name link. plus, I thought the endorsements would be useful as a head count for how much support each position had. --Ludwigs2 01:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Good. Sole Soul (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I see two issues with the template here User:Sole_Soul/test: 1)The width of the two columns are not equal 2)There is an empty space at the top of the right column. Sole Soul (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

fixed. --Ludwigs2 18:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires AFD

The second AFD of Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, resulted in the article being stubbified and the contents moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. You are welcome to make suggestions at the article in the incubator. If your concerns are meet, and you believe the article is ready for mainspace, please sign here [5], or contact User:Spartaz, the closing admin. Thank you.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming

You make a very good comment there, thank you. The current primary editors in that topic area have been occasionally amicably debating similar issues concerning the best way to divvy up the general area into articles. I have tried encouraging them to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment or some similar centralized location, but so far without success. If you would be interested in starting such a debate (and be warned that it would at the very least be long), I think that it could help calm some of the editing excesses people have been committing no matter what the ultimate outcome. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

would there be a particular point in raising it at a central location instead of where it is? Global warming is not really my thing, and I haven't really delved into it on wikipedia (just got there by following an RfC or NoticeBoard link): I mean, I understand both the science and the politics of it, but I'm clueless about the state of the ongoing wiki-debates. --Ludwigs2 08:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A note to a newcomer: you might realize that Talk:Global Warming can become a very unkind place very quickly. So because of that, and the ambiguity possible in internet conversation, and the fact that I disagree with you, I would like to thank you for your courtesy in how you have presented your views. Also because of those facts, I'd like you to know that I absolutely hold no ill will with you, and that if you ever feel slighted by me, you can feel free to address it on my talk, and you'll probably get an apology of how something I was trying to say came out the wrong way. Awickert (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks, Awickert, I appreciate it. no worries though, I'm used to unkind wikipedia spaces and have a fairly thick skin about it. be aware that I may come off fairly strong on certain points when I feel the need to, but mostly that's for rhetorical effect; it has little impact on my actual arguments and isn't meant personally. and the offer is mutual - if I get on your case in a way you dislike (which I may have just done - lol), let me know and I'll do my best to make it right.

--Ludwigs2 19:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

And indeed you just did. But so you know, it's not just you - it's all of the crap that gets flung there, and I usually like to not fling feces back (for the sake of productivity). But the desire to fling feces builds up after a while of ignoring thinly-veiled and unveiled insults and attacks. However, I have a short memory for such things, and I'm sure we can get along. Awickert (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

left you an apology on the page. sorry about that, I think the monkey-mind had me by the short and curlies for a bit.

--Ludwigs2 23:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A bit of an incoherent comment (mostly because you've raised a lot of issues): I find your comments on tGW interesting though i disagree with them, there is one thing that i would object to (rather strongly :-) ), and that is to consider Global warming controversy even remotely appropriate as a description of the political side of global warming. It describes controversy on the science (to some extent outside of due weight), but it certainly doesn't describe not politics or policy issues. Most of the things discussed on the GWC article are subjects that are outside the political debate... the policy debate (if we discount the US) is about the cost/benefits of mitigation/adaptation, which is described in Politics of global warming and Economics of global warming. Unfortunately a lot of the chaff and discussions on climate change related articles are not about politics, but instead are coming from editors who do think that the science is the very best dodgy, and not even remotely close to being agreed upon (as you can see from some of the comments). And though i agree that the real debate should be "what do we do about this information" (ie. policy) from an "honest broker" principle, i have to disagree about where the primary focus should be.... without an understanding of the scientific issues, there can be no informed debate. just my 2 cents. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

well, I haven't really had a chance to go through all of the assorted pages on this issue yet. you're probably right that the GW controversy isn't the correct place to start (at least content-wise); I'm really more concerned at this time with getting the point across that the issue is primarily political and only secondarily scientific. the actual content issues can be addressed if and when people decide to move the page in (what I argue is) the correct direction. Is there a decent discussion of the political aspects hidden somewhere in this mass of pages that I should be looking at? --Ludwigs2 01:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)