User talk:Ludwigs2: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I've invited a number of people to join at this thread, so thank you for looking. I'd like to develop something similar to wp:AWB, except PHP based (frankly, I'm starting this because I'm annoyed that there's no version of AWB that works on Macs). My idea is to create a separate user (much like a bot-account): people can navigate to that user's page, where they will find an assortment of HTML forms where they can perform AWB-like functions straight through wikipedia's servers. My problem is the learning curve - the PHP coding is not beyond me technically, but the project is too large for me to handle on my own, given my current informational deficit. I've contacted you (as a group) because you have worked on or developed PHP bot code, and will probably be much more 'up' on this problem than I am. what I need to know is the following:

• Which of the various available bot frameworks is best suited to this task?
• How difficult do you think this project will actually be?
• What's the best approach (In your view) to achieving this?
• What considerations am I missing? I'm already concerned about keeping this from turning into a vandalism tool, for instance, and about server resources (it would probably be best to have a system of queueing requests, which would help with both problems).

I'd also like to know if any of you are interested in collaborating on this project - that would make things a hell of a lot easier for me, and make development much faster. Please let me know. --Ludwigs2 06:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello, ludwigs2! i just don't understand what the problem is. look at my additions to subchapter 2.3.1 (health and nutrition). the correlation between iodine deficiency and reduction of iq is an established scientific fact reported in several papers for years (see e.g. the copenhagen consensus). this reduction is usually calculated to be between 12 to 15 iq points. racial theorists and other pseudo scientists, of course, try very hard to hide this and other incriminating medical facts. in chapter 2.3.8 (physiology) i added the results of john lorber's research, but i could have gone further. the whole chapter is misleading (albert einstein's brain weighed only 1230 grams!). in addition, there is increasing evidence that rearing conditions (subchapter 2.3.2) affects the iq...the list can go on!

for now, however, i am just trying to add info that racial theorists are deliberately omitting; additions that are well inside the consensus reached.

mustihussain 15:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustihussain (talk • contribs)

Mustihussain: I have no objections on the grounds of content. the problem I'm having is that I'm in the middle of a very tense mediation, and having you get a bit pushy about including the material directly (4 reverts???) is likely to create some excess stress for the participants. we have a mediation page with a thread for comments - Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence#Review_of_4.2F1_draft - why don't you present the material you want to add there, so that we can discuss it. --Ludwigs2 15:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i understand. but do you really think it is a good idea that i participate in a mediation that already looks like a kafkaian nightmare? besides, what i wrote about iodine deficiency is a medical fact. it's nothing to discuss. the consensus version of the article notes:

"factors including lead exposure[37], breast feeding[38], and nutrition[39][40] can significantly affect cognitive development and functioning."

it is already there! i just added a figure! if i am not allowed to even provide a complementary proven fact to a subchapter then there is no hope. the whole "discussion" is a charade. the racial theorists have hijacked the article.mustihussain 16:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that your edits were reverted several times is a really good indication that you should discuss the matter. just say what you said here, be factual, concise, and make it clear that you don't think the edit is all that contentious, and wait to see what people say. There is no need for you to enter into the political squabbles at all. if people say no, then accept it for now, wait a week, and try discussing it again (the emotional climate in the mediation goes up and down on a regular basis). --Ludwigs2 16:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i'll give it a thought. thanks for the advice. mustihussain 16:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustihussain (talk • contribs)

Ludwigs2, I think you had better check mediation policy. The purpose of mediation is to resolve a dispute among specific editors. The mediation page is a forum for accomplishing this. But it is not a substitute for the talk page of an article. The talk page of an article is for any discussion towards improving the article.

I think you need to distinguish between specific conflicts among specific editors that led to mediation, and any new conflicts. If Mustihussain was part of the conflict that led to mediation, and then made an edit on a point being discussed at the mediation, then I could see your objecting to her action.

But Mustihussain was not part of the mediation, because he was not part of the conflict that required mediation. It is wrong for any editor, Captain Occam, me, anyone, to object to his editing the article on the grounds that it was not approved by the mediation page. This simply means that the mediation page is usurping the role of the article talk page.

You wrote, "The fact that your edits were reverted several times is a really good indication that you should discuss the matter." This is inappropriate. Captain Occam and Mikemikev reverted Mustihussain's edits sseveral times but always with the same reason: that the edit had not been approved by the mediation page. They never asked if the edit made by Mustihussein violated any Wikipedia content policy; they did not care whether the edit was an improvement to the article because it added another sourced view, for example. It is Captain Occam and Mikemikev who were acting inappropriately. They cannot use the fact that they are in a mediation as a pretext to keep people who are not part of the mediation from editing the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, after making his edits David Kane invited people to "edit boldly" now that he was done. The only question in my mind that we should have about any future edits to the article are the same one's we would ask of any edit to any article: is it compliant with NPOV, V, RS, and NOR? Is it written in an appropriate style? Is it encyclopedic? If someone objcts to an edit on the basis of one of thse criteria, they should take it to the articl talk page per Wikipedia policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig, do you think it’s a good idea for us to be inviting editors to add or remove material in the article at this point, without discussing it in the mediation? I don’t. Everyone is agreed that the current article is a first draft, and the mediation is in the process of determining how it should be revised. If we allow an entirely separate discussion to take place on the article talk page, which reaches its own separate conclusions about how to revise this draft, it’s more likely than not that those conclusions will be different from the ones we reach in the mediation.

If you do decide to allow separate and parallel discussions about how to revise the article, I think you need to come up with a plan about what we should do if the conclusions of those discussions end up conflicting with one another, because the odds are against two separate discussions on separate pages independently coming to the same conclusion. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ slrubenstein: I'd normally agree with you, but unfortunately this mediation got opened to the entire world, and I am adapting to that situation as I can. The fact that he got reverted several times (as is true on any page) does mean that he should discuss the edit with other editors, and the mediation page (given the current situation) is as good a place to do that as any - better in some ways, since it keeps the conversation contained in one location.

Right now, I have one goal - to get you guys to produce a good, neutral, balanced article. Circumstances not of my making and outside my control have made that far more convoluted and difficult than it ought to be, so I find myself having to ignore some otherwise sound procedural issues that (in this situation) will only get in the way of producing a decent article. If you want to contribute to building the article, please do so. If you want to make a substantive complaint about something that you think is interfering with creating neutrality or balance, please do that as well. But you're complaining here about me asking someone to discuss their edits in one place rather than another place, and that is a procedural issue of absolutely no consequence to the development of the article, and not something that I am interested in arguing about.

As I said elsewhere: if you want to be part of the solution, I will welcome you with open arms; if you don't, that's too bad, but that is your right. But don't stir up inconsequential procedural issues, because at this point that will only get in the way of building the article.

@ Occam: I have no set opinion on people adding material to the article itself. if what they add is an improvement, who would object? if what they add is contested, then we'll stick by wp:BRD. Anything that gets added can be adjusted as the review discussion progresses, if need be. --Ludwigs2 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. of course, mediation participants are obliged not to edit the article without first establishing consensus in talk. I assume that is clear...--Ludwigs2 19:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, guys, if you do not agree with David Kan'e invitation on the article talk page, then say so, to David Kane, on the article talk page. In the meantime, the mediation page is to mediate specific discputes among specific parties. You cannot make it a requirement that anyone wishing to edit the article join the mediation or seek your/our approval. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make it a requirement, all I did was ask him to bring it up there because there was a clear disagreement about its inclusion. or would you rather I left it to turn into an edit war? There is no more to be said on this issue, so drop it and go review Bryan Pesta's comments at the mediation page. I'd love to hear your opinion on them. --Ludwigs2 00:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i totally agree with Slrubenstein. there is a template on the r&i page saying: "you are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well". it didn't say anything about getting the approval of editors that are themselves stuck in a "mediation" quagmire. the fact that some editors claimed that i needed an approval to state a medical fact is shocking. it is assumed that iodine deficiency causes a huge loss of i.q. points in the world (i.e. in the developing world, see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_intelligence#Micronutrients_and_vitamin_deficiencies). even racial theorists like lynn and vanhanen are clever enough to mention that iodine and other micronutrients are essential for the development of cognitive abilities!

i also find subsections "physiology" (2.3.8) and "rearing conditions" (2.3.2) quite poor (for different reasons). in the physiology section it is stated that:"studies have reported correlations that range from 0 to 0.6, with most correlations 0.3 or 0.4.[51]". sorry, but this is not serious. the point has to be elaborated. such a huge variation in correlation is most probably due to statistical fluctuations (i.e. lack of statistics) i.e. there is no way to determine what the real "correlation" is as long as there is not enough statistics... "0 to 0.6" doesn't tell the reader anything at all. in the "rearing conditions" section, references to newer findings are missing (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/books/review/Holt-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 , http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/books/review/Holt-t.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 , http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/magazine/23wwln_idealab.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2 , http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/magazine/23wwln_idealab.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2). mustihussain 02:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There is also nothing on the page that says you are allowed to ignore wp:BRD. please read and understand that page. If you want to make changes, nothing is stopping you. if you get reverted, discuss the matter. I don't care (personally) whether you discuss the matter in mediation or on the article's talk page (I thought it would be easier for all concerned to discuss it on the mediation page but it seems your interests lie elsewhere), but if you engage in tendentious editing of the sort you engaged in earlier I'll report you for edit warring.

Understood? --Ludwigs2 02:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point, Ludwigs2. BRD only works if the revert is made in good faith. A good faith revert is: this violates a core content policy. Or, this adds not content but disrupts the flow of the prose. But Captain Occam and mikemikev were reverting not for any of these good reasons, but because Mustihussain was not part of the mediation. They were demanding he join the mediation as a condition for editing. That is wrong, and is edit-warring, not what Mustihussain did. Understood? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SLR, that is bullshit. BRD means someone makes a bold edit, someone else reverts it (for whatever reason they may have), and then the two of them go to talk and discuss the matter. mustihussain did not (and unless I've missed something, still has not) made any comments in talk whatsoever. The three editors who reverted him were perfectly within their rights to do so, and mustihussain made the error of not trying to discuss the matter with them. enough. --Ludwigs2 15:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but when reverting an edit it is customary to then create a section on the talk page of the article in question, and explain the reason for the reversion. I am not defending Mustihussain, but neither does anyone have cause to defend Catain Occam or Mikemikev. If they had a problem with Musti's edit, they were fine to revert him but BRD means that they should have initiated a discussion on the article talk page. You have to have a reason to revert, a reason that opens up a discussion. Captain Occam and Mikemikev did not. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you raising yet another minor procedural point to justify your first minor procedural point?

rube: I get it, I understand the issues you have the article, I understand that you're angry, I even understand the political techniques that you're using here to try to achieve your goals (filibustering on minor procedural issues, making numerous complaints to administrators in various locations, etc. - I could go on with a more detailed analysis if you like). I even sympathize with you, and I am trying to give you the opportunity to get past all that and make a decent article. So do us both a favor: let it go and get back to editing. ok? --Ludwigs2 16:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you cannot talk about it like a grown up, fine, sorry I hit a nerve. At first I really thought you just misread the situation in responding too quickly. Now it is clear that this is not the case. By the way, filibustering cannot happen at Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whatever you think is fine. let's just get back to revising. --Ludwigs2 22:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: If you would like to me do a second rewrite incorporating comments from Aprock, Bpestas, Occam and others, then it would have to be either Tuesday or Wednesday this week. (I could also do next week, but my sense is that you want to move this along.) No worries if you would rather have someone else do it. DJ, among others, is a much better writer than I am! David.Kane (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig,

I know you’ve had some doubts about Mathsci’s behavior lately, so I thought you might want to take a look at this diff. Is it acceptable to revert another user’s comments on a talk page under these circumstances? I consider this problematic; but you’re the one who makes the rules here, so it’s up to you whether it is or not. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's acceptable, since it's very close to outing. I've actually templated horse wiz for it, and I would have removed it myself if I had seen it before Mathsci. I would have preferred if Mathsci had asked me, but... --Ludwigs2 21:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I regard this as an attempt at WP:OUTING since the editor made a link to my real life photograph (taken by Charles Matthews). Occam should be careful, or he could incur a lengthy block for assisting in outing. If this continues I will contact members of ArbCom, possibly mentioning Captain Occam. Mathsci (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That threat is as empty as all your others, loudmouth. The pic was taken at a public wikipedia meeting, published by wikipedia, and you were identified in the pic by wikipedia. It does not disclose your name. So go back to pushing people around at the mediation. The only thing wrong here is sockpuppeting by someone either here or somewhere else you've bullied.

Ironically, your comment is great evidence that the race/intelligence link (true) is not the same thing as "smart people are superior" (false). TechnoFaye Kane 13:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci has disclosed where he works.[1] --Horse wiz (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not for me to worry about. You are not a participant in the mediation, but you are participating there to make off-topic and personal commentary. In fact, I notice this is a recently created account that has done nothing except comment in a mediation, and that simply reeks of bad intentions. if you persist in this kind of behavior I will file a report with the administrators (mentioning all my concerns) and let them decide how best to handle the situation.

I am generally tolerant, but I am not about to allow you to hang around the mediation solely for the purpose of inflaming tempers. understood? --Ludwigs2 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment smacks of academic elitism. [2] --Horse wiz (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without disagreeing with your point, please don't make me open a sock-puppet investigation on you. You obviously have some particular beef with Mathsci, and you've obviously created this account just to carry that beef over into the R&I mediation, and that's not acceptable. stop it.

Mathsci looks just like I thought someone like him would. I wonder if he beats up his wife with those hands.

Nevertheless, why NOT call for a sockpuppet investigation? It doesn't use a lot of someone's resources, does it? Can I do it myself? If I do, will you back me up? I won't report the result to anyone but you. Would doing it be proper, a radical, big-deal thing like accusing someone of being a communist`, or is this whole issue a tempest in a toilet? Note that while I'm reeeal good at establishing what's true, I am biologically incapable of identifying what's "proper".

Note that whoever wants to "out" mathsci, if they're in our group, almost certainly agrees with me about article content. But that doesn't matter. Wikipedia is my ONLY sanctuary from the stuff which drove me to go live in a cave (and BTW, arrogant people like mathsci are a big part of that). RL is an arbitrary, irrational, god-forsaken nightmare; and infection by the disease of ill-will and disruption by the malicious MUST not be tolerated in this Sanctuary--no matter WHO does it.

And that includes mathsci. TechnoFaye Kane 13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, nothing you have written above makes the slightest bit of sense to me. Still, have a nice day. Mathsci (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Pesta appears to be an untenured member of faculty in Cleveland State University. He is attempting to dismiss a distinguished academic at the University of Michigan using criteria outside normal editing policies. Don't you see a serious problem there? Mathsci (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Pesta is an editor who is offering his opinion on Nisbett as a source. The fact that he is also an academic is an arguable plus (to the extent that he is more familiar with the material than most normal editors). However, Pesta is not a source, and none of his own work is being offered for use on this article, so the attempt to dismiss his opinion by saying that he is "part of the untenured faculty of Cleveland State University" is clearly an attack on his credibility as an editor. If you want to refute his opinions about Nisbett, please focus on Nisbett and Nisbett's relationship to academia, through proper sourcing.

I mean, really... you just got very upset (understandably and correctly) when Horse Wiz tried to 'out' you in your professional standing; why did you turn around and try to use Bryan's professional standing as a tool to dismiss what he says? If you don't want to take his opinions as anything more than the opinions of another editor, that's ok by me, but don't do it by dragging personal matters into the mix. they are irrelevant to the discussion. --Ludwigs2 22:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woh, right ON! This is a perfect example of what I talked about here. TechnoFaye Kane 12:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before the edit wars get ugly, I would recommend that you assign (as soon as possible) either me or someone else to incorporate the suggestions made by Aprock, Occam, Bpesta and so on. Just my 2 cents. And, again, kudos to you for a great job with the mediation. It is truly a thankless task. David.Kane (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David. it seems that Mathsci and Occam worked something out - or am I missing some bit of it? please point me to wherever the problem is if you're seeing something specific that still needs to be addressed. --Ludwigs2 17:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was about, specifically, Aprock and the other editors who offered extensive commentary on my draft. We (or you or I or all of us) promised (?) them that those comments would be incorporated in the article in some fashion. I think that the best way to do that is to specify a specific editor to do that. How else will they get in? David.Kane (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make a new section and bring that up in the mediation, and then give it a day or so before editing it in. I don't have any objections to anyone doing it, so long as there's no overt objections. --Ludwigs2 19:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. David.Kane (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any and all comments I made concerning Dr. Pesta's credentials and position were in relation to him not as editor but as the author of journal articles we might be using in the encyclopedia article - because that is the context in which we are talking about Nesbitt. That said, I reiterate that it was not I who first raised his credentials, and other editors have alluded to his position or credentials in presenting him as an "expert" editor. I think the criticism you have leveled against MathSci and myself could have been leveled against TechnoFaye and mikemikev and perhaps others and I do not understand why you level it against me when you did not level it against them. I hope you do not think of this as fillebustering. I am writing here so as not to further disrupt the mediation talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet seen anyone except TechnoFaye claim that we ought to listen to Bpesta because he's an expert. If you have, point it ought and I'll deal with it (Faye is a special case, whom I give allowances due to her self-proclaimed autism; I think we all recognize and adapt to her excesses). I'm more concerned with the approach you (and to a greater extent Mathsci) take, which seems to say the following:

• Nesbett is a respected tenured professor (which is true)
• Pesta is an untenured professor (which is true)
• Therefore, Nesbitt's opinion carries more weight than Pesta's (which is problematic)

The reason why that conclusion is problematic is that Nesbitt and Pesta are not talking to each other in the academic literature. If Bryan had published material opposing Nesbitt, and that material were being offered as a criticism of Nesbitt, then the reliability of Bryan's published work would come into scrutiny, and his professional standing would be a matter for discussion (and yes, Nesbit would probably beat him hands down on notability). however, what we have here (as far as I can see) is that Bryan has offered an opinion as an editor about Nesbitt (using his own impressions of the academic literature), and you and Mathsci have offered opinions as editors that oppose Bryan's opinion. the three of you should now get down to comparing sources and arguments; neither your, nor Mathsci's not Pesta's professional affiliations matters (except to the extent that they give you knowledge bases).

As I have said before, Bpesta was allowed into this discussion because (as a professional in the field) he has a broad knowledge of the material in the literature. That means he has knowledge and access to sources the rest of us may not; it does not mean that he is making a scholarly argument here on wikipedia (which wouldn't be allowed under policy anyway), or that his opinion carries more weight than any other editor's. treat him as an editor and examine his arguments and sources as you would any other editor - that's all I ask. --Ludwigs2 19:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that Pesta is more of an authority than Nesbitt, or that his article should weigh more than Nesbitt's book. Nor have I ever suggested the opposite. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Here Mikemikev2 alludes to Bryan's credentials or position, and he is referring to Bryan as a fellow ediotr, not as the source of a published journal article we may use as a source. Yet you repremind me and MathSci, not Mikemikev. This is the kind of thing that gives credence to Mutuwandi's concerns about your having allowed a few SPAs to hijack the process. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're objection is. are you saying that Bryan is not an expert in his field? Mikemikev's statement here is overblown, true, but he's neither insisting that Bryan's views be taken as read nor saying that Bpesta's academic standing overshadow's Nesbitt's. The issue here is not approval or disapproval of Bpesta's views (which are perfectly valid as far as talk pages go), but the confusion between wikipedia debates and scholarly debates. Bpesta is entitled to have a view on Nesbitt as an editor; mike is entitled to like it, you are entitled to dislike it, but neither of you is entitled to use Bpesta's academic standing to bolster your likes or dislikes. --Ludwigs2 22:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought it was clear that by providing an example, I was responding to your statement, "I have not yet seen anyone except TechnoFaye claim that we ought to listen to Bpesta because he's an expert." Amy I sayng BPesta is not an expert in his field? Ludwigs2, I really do not understand how you can ask me this question. For one thing, I have answered this question several times on your talk page, and on the mediation talk page. But I have to ask you, on what basis am I supposed to consider him an expert? Aren't his credentials and position evidence of his expertise? And yet you criticized me and MathSci for mentioning his credentials and position. My point is that it is you (and previously, TechnoFaye and Mikemikev), in affirming BPesta's credentials and position, who make them an issue. It therefore makes you a hypocrite to fault mathsci and I for bringing up his credentials and position, when you have not faulted other edtiors, like Mikemikev in the quote I just provided you (in a link) for making his expertise an issue. It is your hypocracy that concerns me. This is a very simple point, and it is the only point I have been trying to make here.

As to questioning Bpesta's credentials, I dare you to find a single sentence or combination of sentences where I reject BPesta's expertise. I mentioned his credentials in only one instance, and that was to make the point that Nesbitt (as a source, not Wikipedia editor) is at least as notable and significant a source as BPesta (as a source, not Wikipedia editor). This is not a challenge to Pesta, it is a defense of Nesbitt. (Can you tell me where, exactly, I said Nesbitt's views count for more than Pesta's? You seem to be making allegations against me without evidence). I have repeated this a couple of times and am disappointed that I have to repeat the point once more, but you asked me to clarify my objection and suggested I was objecting to BPesta. I've no idea where you get that from, but it requires me to repeat what I have stated two or three times on the mediation talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

slr - I am really not understanding you here; it's not making sense to me. let me put my position again, as succinctly as possibly. when and where Bpesta offers his own work as a source, you may address his reliability as a source. where he doesn't, you may not. Bpesta being an expert only means that he is an academic working in the field, with specialized knowledge that might be useful to the editors here. It doesn't mean anything more than that, and it doesn't mean you have to treat him as anything more than another editor. If Nisbett were to sign on and participate here as an editor, I would make exactly the same statement - you could address his credentials when you are dealing with him as a source, but not when you are dealing with him as an editor.

If you don't see the distinction between Bpesta as a source and Bpesta as an editor that is a major failing, because our policies for dealing with sources are significantly different than out policies for dealing with editors. confusing them in this way will inevitably put you in violation of one or both sets of policy. I am asking you to treat him solely as an editor until such a time as his own academic work is presented as a source for the article, and am holding you to the do not comment on other editors rule until that time. if Mike or anyone goes the extra mile and tries to use Bpesta's credentials to claim he should have a more influence than other editors, I will kibosh that as well (and in fact, I have done that on the mediation page at least once already, though I'd have to dig out the diff for it). is that clearer? --Ludwigs2 05:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I ever collapsed the distinction between Bpesta as editor and as source? You keep making allogations against me without providing any examples. Even in this section of your talk page, where do I ellide the distinction? I keep asking you to provide examples of my doing the bad things you claim I have done. And instead of providing evidence, you just keep making more allegations. Why? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You conflated the two here where you said "Bryan Pesta teaches in a Management Department; Nesbitt heads a prestigious institute for cognitive psychology", making an explicit comparison between an editor and a source. Why would this comparison be meaningful? the rest of your statement was unobjectionable, mind you, but why did you think this comparison was meaningful? --Ludwigs2 15:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where am I making an explicit comparison between an editor and a source? NPOV requires that we include all significant views found in verifiable sources, it is a two-fold criteria; the view must be significant and the source verifiable. There is no debate about the verifiability of the sources, both Pesta's article and Nesbitt's book are verifiable sources. But Mikemikev and others were arguing that Nesbitt's views are not significant enough to include in the article. My point was that if Pesta's credentials and position are sufficient to make his view significant enough to include in the article (and Ludwigs2, if you are going to suggest that I am saying they are not, you had better provide an edit diff for just one time that I questioned using his article — because I can provide many edit diffs where I supported using his article), then Nesbitt's position and credentials are sufficient to make his views significant enough to include in the article.

My comparison was between two people whose views should be included in the article. You used the word "explicit." Where on earth do I say that I mean Pesta as editor of Wikipedia and not Pesta as author of a journal article?

My point was to say that Nesbitt is just as significant as Pesta. You used the word "explicit." Where on earth do I say that Pesta's views 9as a published author0 are less significant than Nesbitt's? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said in the passage above: "My point was that if Pesta's credentials and position are sufficient to make his view significant enough to include in the article [...], then Nesbitt's position and credentials are sufficient to make his views significant enough to include in the article", you are acting as though we are actually using an article Bpesta wrote in the article, and actually discussing that Bpesta article in the section in question. we are not, on either count; the section is discussing Nesbitt as a source, and Bpesta is not offering his own scholarly work as a counter to Nesbit, he's offering his opinion as an editor about Nesbitt. Again, if it comes down to discussing a Bpesta article as a source, you may talk about his credentials. Where he is just offering an opinion as an editor, please do not comment on other editors. --Ludwigs2 15:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, Pesta has recommended one of his articles as significant; he has explained why and I on at least two occasions said the material should be introduced into the article, and other editors have as well. If David Kane did not put it in during his first revision, I am sure it will end up in there.

Now why don't you just give it up and say that you misunderstood me. Do you think you are incapable of misunderstanding others? or just admitting to it? I have never commented on any editor's credentials and I do not intend to start, I consider them irrelevant. It is only the credentials of proponents of views we may include in articles that matter. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

let me be clearer. Under policy and the mediation rules, you are allowed to make statements of this type: "Bpesta's article is not a reliable source, because Bpesta's credentials are...". Under policy and the mediation rules, you are not allowed to make statements of this type: "Bpesta's opinion is not reliable, because Bpesta's credentials are...". I ask you to respect that distinction, and if you don't, I will continue to ask that you redact any statement that leans towards the second type. do you have an issue with that? --Ludwigs2 16:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing - Have I ever written, "Bpesta's opinion is not reliable, because Bpesta's credentials are...?" If you are not sure, I invite you to look at earlier points where he and I REALLY disagreed, for example, concerning Gould. Given that I have never suggested that Bpesta's opinion is not reliable, I do not see this to be a problem. Everyone is welcome to their opinion.

But Ludwigs2, as long as we are on the topic, don't you think that this works both ways? Do you think that Bpesta's opinion has any more weight as an editor than MathSci's, or mine, or Muntuwandi, or TechnoFaye? Yet this is just what Mikemikev was suggesting here and you still have not redacted it, you never even commented on it. I know you have doubts about my insistence that I was comparing two published authors, although that seems obvious to me. But Mikemikev is explicitly to borrow your word referring to B.pesta's opinion as an editor, and invoking his credentials. How dare you ask me to "redact" myself for doing something I have not yet done, while you completely ignore it when other editors really, actually, do do it? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I am not asking you now to redact a comment Mike made yesterday. That's water under the bridge. i just want you to be aware of your own bias, and strive to be just this little bit more even-handed in the future. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't written it, but the statement I linked above does tend to imply it (particularly on the heels of Mathsci's more overt comparisons). I really don't think you've done anything significantly wrong here - you and I may squawk at each other, but I generally have a high regard for you as an editor. I'm just erring on the side of civility, and perhaps being a bit over-zealous about it. but still...

With regards to Mike's and Faye's comments, that's an oddness of policy. wp:CIV prohibits negative comments about other editors, but it doesn't preclude positive comments. If I were to say that Editor X were 'the most glorious example of reason and virtue ever to grace the shores of wikipedia', I'd probably make people gag, but I wouldn't be violating anything except talk-page guildelines like wp:FORUM. making a negative comments however, would be a violation of CIV. so long as mike and Faye are not trying to use Bpesta's credentials to overpower other editors (which, yes, they have tried, and which I've opposed), then there's not much I can say about their glowing reviews.

I do not believe Bpesta's opinion has any more weight than any other editor's, and I will keep that point clear in the mediation. Basically, I think that Bpesta's main advantage to the mediation is that he is well-read on the topic: to the extent that he can provide sources and sourced scholarly opinions that the rest of us might not know about, he's a decided plus. But he doesn't get any special treatment because of that. --Ludwigs2 17:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I certainly hope B.Pesta did not take it the wrong way; I think he knew that in making an argument in favor of using Nisbett's views, I was not denegrating him. As for Mikemikev and Technofaye - and others - I do not think the issue is WP:CIV, I think the real issue is that credentials cannot matter at Wikipedia. While i have every reason to believe B.Pesta is Dr. Bryan Pesta (honestly, I believe it) the lesson of the Essjay affair is not that Essjay was bad for lying about his credentials, it was that everyone else was a fool for caring. I know you agree with me that disputes among editors should be resolved on the basis of policy, not the credentials of the editor. You said you redacted me for bringing up an editor's credentials. Fine. That would be the reason for redacting Mikemikev's remark. It has nothing to do with CIV, it has to do with making an issue out of something that should be ignored during the mediation, an editor's credentials. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fair enough. from now on, if anyone gets overly exuberant in favor of Bpesta as an expert (which is likely to happen, all things considered), I'll redact those comments as well. --Ludwigs2 20:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And obviously, if you do believe I am being uncivil to him or any other editor, I don't mind being corrected.

David Kane is in the middle of revisions now. I found another source analyzing sibling race and IQ data I think is relevant, and I also think straightforward so I made mention of it on the IQ talk page, asking him to include it (I cannot imagine how this could be controversial - it is directly relevant and from a reliable source) FYI. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was particularly tricky given the strong feelings around this subject, but you have managed to keep things calm long enough to have a new version with many structural fixes. I'll read it through when I get a chance and see how the dust settles before deciding on your Barnstar. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks also! By the way, I would like to thank you off-wiki as well. would you mind sending me an e-mail at dave at kanecap.com? David.Kane (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I believe that mediation will be (forcefully) coming to an end in two days, at least that is how I read this [4], note the comment from Xavexgoem. So, to the extent that you have any last acts to perform as mediator, you should perform them. I would certainly like to see my lead as the default for the article when mediation ends. (Folks can always change it later.) Consider it a going-away present for all my hard work! ;-) David.Kane (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol - David... I'm actually working on a compromise version on the mediation. It seems to me that you and Mathsci are in a bit of a head-to-head over the lead, you both make some good points, and I think that you both need to step out of the dispute and consider the article as a whole. As I've said before, no version of this article is going to please everyone, and so both you and M are going to have to (one way or another) find some less-than-completely-satisfactory middle ground which you can both (grudgingly) tolerate. Don't let your desires about the lead spoil the rest of the really excellent work that you've done.

With respect to the ANI thread: <shrug> I try not to read into things in quite that way. As I see it, except for a couple of points, you all don't really need mediation anymore. I'm going to suggest closure myself tomorrow morning, and I think there will be consensus for it. The lead (knock wood) we should be able to settle today; the significance section can be moved to the article talk page... it's all good. --Ludwigs2 15:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all of the above. If I had to choose the lead issue I most care about, it is the use of global rather than US-specific terminology. All other aspects are secondary. In any event, good luck! I agree that mediation can close. And, again, this would have been an utter failure without you. David.Kane (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

testing, testing... --Ludwigs2 17:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IRC? Xavexgoem (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say hi next time :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm trying!!! don't blame me if you guys insist on using 1990 web technology! --Ludwigs2 17:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

have fun. I think this is yours to deal with. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

uhh... I'm not sure I'm following you. was this supposed to go to someone else? --Ludwigs2 02:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein meant that Hipocrite had done a massive revert to a March 28 version of the article. I reverted it back. But others may need to keep on eye on this. David.Kane (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I think closing mediation is premature. MathSci, Captain Occam, and BPesta all have major reservations about the article or about one another's proposals. i am convinced that all three have something to contribute and the result would be something all three could live with, and I bet that would soon get Arya, AProck and Muntuwandi's support and Mikmikev too. But I think you need a specific draft all these guys sign off on. Otherwise, many more editors will come saying that this was not reached by consensus and will revert or make major destabiizing changes. The thing is, I think we are close to a version all these guys will accept as the new article, still open to edits, but not major reverts and to be used as the working draft. I think we are very close to a real consensus. But we are not there yet. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

slr: I have no problem standing up to administrators if I have the legitimate right to do so, but if I try to do it when half of the people who responded to the straw poll say they want the mediation closed, then I'm up a creek without a paddle. I'll have a talk with Hipocrite (which probably won't do any good), but unless you can convince DK and Mathsci to continue the mediation, I really have no ground to stand on to do anything about this

that being said, there are a lot of administrator eyes on the page because of the ANI threads, so I there will be a certain period of relative calmness where we can continue to improve that article. a good article is its own best defense, here. --Ludwigs2 03:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your conversion of {{Infobox police officer}} you removed the HTML classes which form an hCard microformat. I have restored them. Please note the template's documentation for more details. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whoops! sorry, my bad. is it fixed now, or is there more that needs to be done? and thanks for catching that. --Ludwigs2 19:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done, thanks. Just a word of caution for the future. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and a well taken word, at that. honestly, I think I just spaced on it when I did the revision. I'll be more attentive next time. --Ludwigs2 21:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I new at wikipedia. I am a college student working on a project and I am basically clueless. How do I add information to the info box?DukeSoccer11 (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.DukeSoccer11 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had a very civil discussion at the mediation page about "regression to the mean." That he would go against the agreement now that mediation seems rather underhanded to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to lay off a bit, but for goodness sake this is an encyclopedia. "Regression to the mean" is neither a "hereditarian" OR an "environmentalist" view. It is not about being a racist as some have been called, or a communist, as others have been called. It is basic math. Someone who does not understand something should not be writing encyclopedia articles about it. The gall! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

slr - please, the last thing I want you to do is lay off. I don't want unencyclopedic content going into the encyclopedia, and as I said, I have deep suspicions about this regression thing myself. I just sent you that note because you were making it more personal that it needed to be, and (apparently) getting a bit upset over it. I don't think what Mike is doing is underhanded, exactly: a big part of the problem this article suffers from is that it has too many people with pit-bull tendencies, they get their teeth stuck in an idea, and then they have a hard, hard time letting go of it. Either mike will produce a decent source for what he's saying (in which case it should go into the article) or he won't be able to source it (in which case it won't go in), but if you try to push him away, he'll just come straight back, snarling (as will half a dozen other people on this page, myself - at times - included). I think we have to encourage the idea to develop a bit on the talk page, so that it's clear to everyone whether or not it has any merits. I just didn't want it to devolve into an unproductive fight. --Ludwigs2 02:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your encouragement. But this is the problem: Do you know what factor analysis is? Maybe you do, great. Do i know what it is? Yes, but I do not understand it well enough, so I am not going to try to explain it to you. I won't even try to say anything about it in WP< although I know it is relevant and important. I only write about what I understand. Now, I DO understand regression to the mean, and I DO understand basic population genetics, and I know that what Mikemikev and Captain Occam have written is SO wrong, that they simply do not know what they are talking about. Do you see the problem? When I do not understand something, I do not edit on it. Yet here are two editors who clearly do not understand something, yet they think that they can explain it to others via our encyclopedia. I think that is dishonest, disingenuous, bullshit that in a small way makes our encyclopedia an embarassment, the kind of website college professors tell their students not to visit. Do you see my problem now? Because I know these guys are writing encyclopedia content on things they do not understand, I cannot assume good faith on their behalf. I just cannot. They are charlatans. And if this is how I feel about them, I cannot interact with them or work with them on the same article, you know how important AGF is. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[5] is our page listing our projects. I'm a relative newbie myself. Although there are several history articles under way, I am well-baffled by the medicine and science ones. Some of the students have figured out how to use the different tools, but most have not. And of course they are waiting until the very end of the assignment (14 days and counting). Ah well. We'd love some help with the technicalities of wikipedia, with reviews, or whatever you'd like to contribute. This page linked (above) has a section of articles we've edited. Thanks for the offer! Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. You might point them to wp:cheatsheet for a quick overview of using wikitext (it gives basic information about formatting, linking, using images, and the like), and point them to wp:Neutral point of view, wp:consensus, wp:verifiabilty and wp:talk page guidelines for basic editing policies. I'll take a look at project listing page (you might consider setting it up as a subpage of your user page, which would be easier - I can show you how to do that if you don't know how), but basically let them know if they get stuck on something, they can leave a note for me in talk and I'll help them out. incidentally, there's also a special template that they can use to get assistance from volunteers - have them make a new section on their talk page and type {{helpme}} with a brief description of their problem, and someone cheery will swing by with advice. there's very good response time on that.

I don't want to over-assist (it's an educational process, after all), so give me some idea of how much help you want them to receive. also, it would be useful for me to know what age-range I'm dealing with; I teach college, but I can adapt to younger students if that's what you have. just looked at the page, and it gave me cohort info...

P.s. Auntie? --Ludwigs2 04:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig, could you please take a look at this? It seems to be an example of the problem I discussed with you a little while ago, where other users revert my edits while refusing to cooperate with my efforts to discuss them. In this case Mathsci has told me as much: that he will not respond to the justifications I provide for my edits when he reverts them, because he does not believe that they warrant a response.

Nobody other than me and Mathsci seems to be involved in the discussion at that page, so at the very least it would be useful to have someone else offering their input there. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]