User talk:Ludwigs2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
1, 2
About archives

[edit] tsk template

I'm not sure what this template accomplishes. Applying it is equivalent to saying "I think you're being uncivil" - why not just say it? It's not like it needs flagging for posterity or for fixing. Sounds like another thing to get into edit wars about.

Put another way, if the person doesn't realise people think they're being uncivil, then there are kinder and more effective ways to tell them. If they do realise and just don't care, then this isn't going to make any difference at all.

Pseudomonas_(talk) 10:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pseudomonas - I wasn't thinking about the person being uncivil, exactly. I've just noticed that talk page arguments seem to escalate because people feel the need to point out that they've been wronged. e.g.:

1. person A says something rude to person B
2. person B feels the need to point out that what A said was rude
3. person A needs to comment on how rude it was of person B to point that out
4. repeat ad nauseum...

I thought that a quick, non-explicit, non-insulting way of tagging an incivility would cut the process off at step 2 and make it less likely that it would carry on. it's a way to be non-responsive without having to eat too much crow. I could be wrong in my assessment, though, which is why I wanted this feed back. do you think it wouldn't work? --Ludwigs2 17:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look back through the history of WP:CIVIL and related articles, you'll see that this goes against current consensus. I use a copy of an old template that I've edited slightly to start a conversation:

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.
• Assume good faith of other editors.

I hope you find this reminder helpful.

--Ronz (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

hey Ronz - can you point me to some particular passages? I could look through myself, of course, but if you happen to know a couple of places off-hand it would save me some time. also, if you could give me a link to that old template, I would find that useful.  :-) --Ludwigs2 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronz has currently been banned from participating in certain areas of Wikipedia. If you would like a rapid answer to your question, you may wish to ask him at his talkpage (where he is still allowed to participate). Otherwise, he will resume normal editing next week. --Elonka 19:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ah. I guess I'll just skim through myself, then. thanks for letting me know. --Ludwigs2 19:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Quackwatch

I'll refactor it if you can help me. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick shot at it. Does it need more? --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

no, that's much better,thank you.  :-) --Ludwigs2 18:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Editor Help?

Hi, Ludwigs2! I saw you on the Wikiquette Alerts page and your repsonses seemed reasonable and fair and I just needed a third opinion on something. If I'm completely ignorant and in the wrong on this issue, I don't want to make a fuss of it. It just seems that ever since I submitted a couple new articles the other day, one particular admin has had it out for me. I realize that I submitted the articles before I should have. I hadn't gathered the proper references I needed. One article asserted notability and I was about to reference it when this particular admin marked it for a speedy deletion, which seemed out of place. This same admin continues to revert edits I make to articles, claiming that I haven't cited a reference, but aren't there millions of articles on Wikipedia that claim facts and statements without any regard to a reference? Am I wrong to assume that it's ridiculous to assume that EVERY change to an article has to have a reference? I feel singled out by this admin due to the fact that he/she claims, mistakenly, that I am a biased self-promoter. If every edit I make is going to fall under his/her microscopic scrutiny, I'd rather not take part. What do you think? Superhero77 (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

well, it would really help if you could send me diffs, or at least point me to the articles and changes you were making. Wikipedia does have rules for article inclusion and sourcing (see wp:notability and wp:reliable), but some editors (unfortunately) get a bit over-zealous about certain topics. without knowing what you're talking about, I can't really know what's happening.

incidentally, if you read the speedy delete templates, you can add other templates to slow the process down and give some time for talk. if you don't know how to do that, I can show you. --Ludwigs2 17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your revisions

Thanks for leaving a note on my talkpage about your proposed revisions. Since this is a holiday weekend I won't have a chance to review anything in detail, but as soon as I do I'll let you know what I think. Good luck and happy editing! Doc Tropics 18:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ID article antics

I've been browsing the ID article discussion recently and I appreciate your attempts to argue for neutrality in presentation of the material in the face of a rather ferocious unified front. Alas, I'm not motivated to put in the time (and put up with the aggravation) necessary to get into the argument, but I've got to believe that third-party editors and admins (particulalry if they have a background in writing and editing) would recognize both the article's problem with advocacy and what appears to be a very inflexible editing environment (that elaborate table over one choice of noun! Sheesh!). What do you think is going on there? I don't get the sense that pro-ID-ists are anywhere involved (are they?), yet the collective unwillingness to acknowledge the blatant polemicism in the writing surprises me. The most modest editorial suggestion (such as pointing out that the second paragraph doesn't need the sentence mentioning "junk science" when the previous four sentences said basically the same thing) is met with fierce argument. Anyway, just wanted to offer a word of encouragement and get your perspective on the situation if you care to offer it. FYI, I'm sending this same note to Gnixon. -- BTfromLA (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks, encouragement is always helpful. wikipedia can be a lo-o-ong haul sometimes...  :-)

really, I think this is a path-dependency issue (if you know the term...). there probably was a strong contingent of pro-ID people editing this page at one point, who have probably all (by now) been disgusted or politicked out of the discussion. What's left is editors who are conditioned to react as though any suggestion of change is an overt threat (a threat, if nothing else, of a lengthy, unproductive, and ugly talk page debacle), and who react accordingly. some few, maybe, are 'out to get' ID (mostly on principle), but most are just stuck in a habit of mind which they may not even realize they're stuck in.

I swear, the more time I spend on wikipedia, the more appreciation I have for Buddhist philosophy. this place is defined by dukkha.

if you get a chance, I've been rewriting a couple of parts of the ID page at User:Ludwigs2/ID_reworks - it will be a much more congenial atmosphere there, so if you'd like to comment or edit, please feel free. once it's worked out, I'll see what I can do about presenting it back on the ID page. --Ludwigs2 06:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Dukkha, indeed. I got only as far as one paragraph, but take a look and let me know if anything there seems useful. BTfromLA (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you for reverting the vandalism that was done to my talk page. Much appreciated! Caden S (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Fair tone

Template:Fair tone 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. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I've responded. --Ludwigs2 19:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns

"...if you can't even see that there's a logical distinction between a neutral critique and a directed attack, then I respectfully suggest that you take a step back until you can. there's just no reasoning with that kind of emotional blindness. "

I have a strong viewpoint on this, yes, and looking back at the language there are some things there that could be misunderstood and I apologize if they are misleading.

I would, however, ask you to consider your own comments in their own light. Were the ones directed at me a neutral critique or a directed attack? I will attempt to be clearer with my statements. SDY (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

SDY - my sincere apologies, because I think that I am out of line myself. that's why I'm taking the rest of the day off. I'm just getting very frustrated with the kind of conflicts I'm running into here. half the time I discuss things with people here I feel like I'm not even disagreeing with them, but I still can't get what seem to me to be simple and obvious points across without feeling like I'm getting a tooth pulled. there's no willingness to engage in discussion here at all, that I can see, just a constant, knee-jerk bickering.

ehchg... need a break. please ignore my temper as best you can, because I don't mean to aim it at you in particular. --Ludwigs2 23:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that your more recent response was any more polite, but I will forgive you because I understand how contentious this topic is. I know that I should be more careful in how I phrase comments on that page and should really write more "politically" but it is simply not my forte. Assuming good faith is difficult in such a controversial topic. SDY (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

after a good night's sleep, I'll affirm that it wasn't particularly polite of me. I'll make a similar comment on the talk page, just to be fair. I really am trying to edit in good faith here, you know; I'm just not used to the kind of over-aggressive argument style I find here. --Ludwigs2 18:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The public argument over it is rarely conducted in good faith, so it's a real challenge to drag that back into the rules when it is so conspicuously absent in other discussions of the same topic. I may back off the discussion entirely, politicization of science brings out my bitter and argumentative side. SDY (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

lol - mine too, just from the opposite direction.  :-) let me just say that I wouldn't want you to back away from the conversation at all, despite my ill-tempered comments. I'm just frustrated because I'm feeling shut out. you are generally respectful and responsive, even if I disagree with you. unfortunately, that makes it a bit easier to let loose on you, when my irritation is really focused on much more trollish editors. --Ludwigs2 18:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] July 2008

thanks for the note SA. --Ludwigs2 21:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seek consensus before change on policy pages

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Note that for high profile policy pages (WP:NPOV is one of them) it is customary & recommended (see {{policy}}) to seek consensus before change. Do as you think most fit, but revertwarring there against a couple of people who put the previous consensus back, awaiting the new one is, um, frowned upon. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Francis - please read the diffs. the version they are putting into place is not the original consensus version (even though they are presenting it that way) - it's their own modified version which they are trying to present as consensus. I understand your concerns, but you're misunderstanding the context. --Ludwigs2 15:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop edit-warring. Please.

I'm going to be blunt. You're currently edit-warring on at least two different pages - WP:NPOV and Quackwatch. You've barely skirted WP:3RR with your reverts of multiple editors at WP:NPOV, and if I looked at your editing as an uninvolved admin I'd be pretty tempted to block you for obviously inappropriate edit-warring and gaming 3RR by going just outside 24 hours. Likewise on Quackwatch - you don't need to revert to check references from an old version. Use the page history. Bottom line: you are edit-warring, and you need to pursue dispute resolution, solicit outside opinions, and stop edit-warring, or you're going to be blocked. MastCell ^Talk 15:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, this request for page protection is disingenuous; you're asking for your favored version to be protected, which violates the protection policy, but more importantly, you're mischaracterizing the situation as a multilateral edit-war requiring protection when in fact you've single-handedly reverted 4 or 5 different editors 5 times in the past day and a half or so. MastCell ^Talk 15:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell - <sigh...> you know, I can't speak for SA, and OrangeMarlin is borderline, but you, at least, seem to respect Wikipedia as a whole. you've had enough encounters with me to know that I am generally reasonable in conversation, and I would think that you (at least) would prefer to let this discussion have a proper hearing rather than try to force it into place by gaming the system. I mean seriously - I can't even see why you hang out with SA, mush less why you cooperate with him to subvert the consensus system.

and you know as well as I do that favored or not, that is the stable version, prior to any discussion. let's not be silly... --Ludwigs2 15:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You do seem reasonable in conversation, which is why I think you might be convinced that you're going about this the wrong way. NPOV is a bedrock policy. It's not going to suddenly change because 4 or 5 editors want it to. Just request outside input, and let other people comment and, if necessary, revert. Lots of editors watch WP:NPOV. If the changes don't have consensus, someone else will revert them. It happens all the time.

I don't "hang out" with SA, or collaborate with him to subvert Wikipedia. You're welcome to comb the history for my opinions in that regard, but suffice to say that sometimes I agree with him, and sometimes I don't. Sort of like I sometimes agree with you and (OK, perhaps more often) don't. In this particular case, I think you're clearly edit-warring against a number of other editors. WP:3RR doesn't make exceptions for defending a "stable" policy revision, though I understand where you're coming from. "Stable" versions do change, and the only way to know if this change actually has broad consensus is to step back see if others besides you disagree with it. I haven't reverted the article, well, at all, and I think SA et al should stop as well. It's actually not important to me which version is up right now, so long as a discussion is moving forward on the talk page. I'd encourage you to take that attitude as well. MastCell ^Talk 16:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

ok, your point is taken, and I'll admit my own lack of perspective on these matters. I think I'm just going to have to face up to the extent that ScienceApologist gets under my skin and learn to deal with it (which means, in part to stop projecting it on others, such as yourself). C'est la vie... --Ludwigs2 16:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

It is clear from the recent history of this policy that the changes you wish to make do not yet have consensus. Therefore it would be best to restrict yourself to the talk page in the near future except in respect of uncontroversial changes. I have declined to protect this page at WP:RFPP on the basis that, when feasible, blocks should be preferred to page protection. Obviously, the best outcome would be for the edit warring to cease and then no blocks would be necessary. I express no opinion on the change you wish to make and have left this message on your talk page simply to clarify what I wrote at WP:RFPP since you have performed more reverts in recent days than any other single editor and are thus at greatest risk of being blocked. CIreland (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

CIreland - please check the diffs - I was not making changes, but rather opposing them. --Ludwigs2 16:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked you 24 hours for edit warring on a project page and trying to skirt 3rr in doing so. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|I admit my error (had a fit of pique there) and promise not to engage in any more reverts on WP:NPOV until the talk page discussion is complete. I would like to be able to continue participating in the discussion, since I am the primary voice for one side of the debate, but that can wait a day if you think the block is necessary...}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Promises to refrain from edit warring. Request handled by: jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stand by, please; contacting blocking admin.  Sandstein  17:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Ludwigs understands the problem, has apologized and made good promises, and I recommend an immediate unblocking. -- Fyslee / talk 17:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for input on this unblock request at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving assistance

Hi, Ludwigs2, would it be alright if I setup an archivebot for your talkpage? The page is currently around 130K, and some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. But I could set up a bot that would automatically archive inactive threads, and then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore? Let me know, --Elonka 20:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

errr... sure, go ahead. I hadn't really thought about the issue before. is that archive bot something that I can exercise any programmatic control over, or is does it just operate on a set of preset criteria? --Ludwigs2 15:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and seeded it. The way it'll work, is that it'll check your talkpage once every 24 hours (I'm not sure when the next pulse is, but it should kick in by tomorrow), and automatically archive any thread which has had no activity for several days. These threads will be copy/pasted to /Archive 1 until it's "full" (I've set that as 75K), and then the bot will automatically create the next numbered archive. This is very configurable (see User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo). You can adjust the max size of archives (I recommend between 75-250K), as well as the time delay of how long until a thread is considered "inactive". Some people set this as 60 days, and other extremely busy pages archive every few hours. I eyeballed your talkpage and guesstimated based on traffic that a 7-day cutoff was about right, but you are welcome to tweak it. Or, let me know and I'll make any adjustments needed. :) --Elonka 19:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ah, ok... this is very cool.  :-) thanks. and no worries, I'm good with computerish things. but I'll certainly send you a note if I have any troubles figuring out the options. --Ludwigs2 20:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] frog help

i was browsing around and found your post about needing pics of frogs, and i have quite a few, but i dont know how to place them on the page....

one goo site i know of is http://allaboutfrogs.org/gallery/index.html

Phillip.ludlow (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Phillip - I really appreciate the offer, but the 'frogs' thing was just part of a demonstration of a template I made for someone else. I don't really need pictures of frogs. if you'd like top post a pic of a frog here on my talk page, though, that would be cool.  :-) can't have too many frogs, is what I think... plus, if you'd like instructions on how to add pics to a page, just ask. --Ludwigs2 15:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] typo on your new proposal

I corrected a typo on your proposal here. It said "undo weight" instead of "undue weight" --Enric Naval (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

lol - thanks, I appreciate it. don't want people to get the idea this is dieting instructions.  :-) --Ludwigs2 19:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pope shenouda

According to wikipedia policy only the commentator may strike his comments if he deems so. Stop your vandalistic action. You will receive only one warning before i contact wikipedia 77.248.185.98 (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

first off - if you're going to use warning templates, please follow the proper procedure - last warnings are only for extreme cases.

second, any editor can remove material deemed inappropriate and offensive. if you'd like, I'll ask for an administrator's intervention and they will remove the comment and the section entirely. if you have something productive to add, please do so. however, please do not waste all of our time defending dumb humor like you're doing now. --Ludwigs2 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Belated answer

Hiya, I was reviewing the previous ANI thread, and remember that I was meaning to answer your question that you'd posted here.[1] Sorry about the late reply!

In terms of improving your writing style though, here's my recommendation: Avoid terms that could be seen as pejorative, in reference to the individual as opposed to the article. For example, accusing SA of being "myopic", even though done in a somewhat roundabout way, was still a bit uncivil. Saying he had a "dictatorial stance when he does bother to communicate", also came across as an attack. Better would have been to omit the "myopic" parenthetical, as well as the "stance" clause, but the rest was probably fine, though still marginal. There's still the issue that your comments are referring to him as opposed to articles. This is a subtle point, so let me see if I can explain it another way: I often see editors get into a war on an article: Redhat says, "Doodads are red!" to which Greenhat says "No, they're green!" and back and forth. Then even if they move to the talkpage, rather than arguing based on sources, like, "Okay, I've got 27 books that say doodads are red, and only three that say they're green, what do you have?" they instead get into arguments where they are trying to personally convince each other of the rightness of their argument, and then they lose track of the article. Then it boils over to ANI, with Redhat saying, "Greenhat is an idiot, and he won't admit it!" and Greenhat saying, "Redhat was mean to me!" But ultimately, as far as third parties are concerned, it probably doesn't matter what Redhat's and Greenhat's relative IQs are, nor the level of their respective social skills. Instead, the community is far more interested in what the article says, worrying less about content, and more about whether or not the article is in adherence with Wikipedia policies. Administrators (usually) aren't going to take action on an editor because he's "dumb", but they will take action on an editor for calling another editor dumb (even if the statement is true, it's still a personal attack). However, if Redhat said, "I put in 25 sources saying that doodads are red, and Greenhat deleted all of them, saying that doodads are green, but he didn't add any sources," then that is something that administrators can take action on, because Greenhat just violated WP:V.

Bottomline, don't worry about ScienceApologist's visual acuity or posture. :) Stick to his actual actions on an article, and if you see a problem, produce specific diffs of problematic edits, and you will have a much stronger case. --Elonka 01:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... I guess maybe that's the problem - I hadn't thought I was making a case for anything. but ok, I can see your points. I'll be more focused in the future.  :-) thank you. --Ludwigs2 02:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nudge

You seem to be removing several reliable sources from the Quackwatch article. If this is just an interim measure as part of a larger edit, please feel free to ignore my notice. I just want to make sure that when you're done, all the sources are still in place. Thanks, Elonka 22:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

no, sorry, I thought it was clear what I was doing. I removed one source because it was duplicated, and removed some broken refs. however, I'll go and revert what I did, and approach it more cautiously, with better edit summaries... --Ludwigs2 22:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

By my count, this edit removed multiple sources, that were not used anywhere else in the article.[2] --Elonka 22:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, I see that now. that was inattention on my part. I still think the move from the 'site' to the 'usefulness' section is justified, but I will preserve all the current sources, and rework them into the later section. --Ludwigs2 22:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again.  :) Regarding duplication in the lead and the rest of the article, be aware that a certain amount of duplication is actually encouraged, since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. In other words, there should be no information or sources in the lead, unless that information, and those sources, have already been covered in the rest of the article. For more on this, see WP:LEAD. Thanks, and carry on, --Elonka 19:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm planning on expanding those sources in the body as well, but I haven't gotten to it yet. should I do that first (moving the sources into the body now, and re-adding them to the lead later), or just continue working through the edits as is? --Ludwigs2 19:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Best practice is to work on the article first, and lead second. Having a fleshed out and stable article usually makes it much easier to write the lead, rather than the other way around. --Elonka 19:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

ok, - I've resolved the problem with the Ladd citation. I'll move the Jaroff citation back to it's original place in the body - that one is under discussion on the talk page anyway, and so it's probably best to leave it be for the time being. --Ludwigs2 19:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ID lead rewrite

Hi. I looked at your edits (I'm confining myself to the lead section at this point). While I think you've made some improvements, and I certainly admire the attempt, my conclusion is that your changes don't go nearly far enough in addressing the problems with the lead. The existing version is a mess--in terms of pov, ordering, quality of info and, in my view, absolutely terrible prose. It needs to be rebuilt, which probably means being rewritten almost entirely. For example, I think that the current lead puts far too much emphasis on the specifics of the Kitzmiller decision. It states--I'll use your draft--"Intelligent design arguments were first formulated by certain United States creationists in the 1980s in the wake of court decisions barring the teaching of creationism as an alternative theory to biological evolution in the public schools.[4][5][6]." But is this really true? On one hand, we could point to William Paley as having formulated an intelligent design argument. On another hand, if I recall correctly the Discovery institute cites some 1984 precedent, before the anti-creationism decisions. And many sources point to Philip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial (1991 or 92) as the galvanizing document of the modern ID concept. What I'm saying is that it seems an oversimplification to equate ID as a whole with "Pandas and People" and the Dover school board's attempts to promote it in their public schools. A landmark case in the history of ID, surely, but not the whole subject. So we need to finess the question of origins as well as making decisions about what info is key enough to merit inclusion in the lead's overview of the topic, plus dealing with the NPOV issues that have been a sticking point. I think that my own proposed opening paragraph and SDY's proposed outline of the lead provide a place to start developing the lead without inheriting a bunch of pernicious traits from its ancestor. What do you think? -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you. I was working on the assumption that any attempt at outright rewriting would generate such a tremendous head-to-head conflict that actual progress would be impossible. tell you what, though... if you really want to rewrite, I'm willing to work with you and follow your lead. let's start creating something on the talk page (or on the article itself, if you think that would be feasible) and see what happens. --Ludwigs2 20:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)