User talk:Ludvikus

This is Ludvikus's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to inquiries.

User:CambridgeBayWeather: Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. I didn't realise that I had been doing much reversion on the page. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that. I check it out later on. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malik Shabazz (1): Proposed deletion of Marx/Engels Collected Works

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Marx/Engels Collected Works, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 06:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep. Ludvikus (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malik Shabazz (2): Proposed deletion of Standard work

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Standard work, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 06:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep. Ludvikus (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Rossami: RfD comments

Would you please return to the RfD page when you get a minute? I think the comments you made on 5 May might have been accidentally appended to the wrong discussions. (If not, then I must confess that I don't have a clue what you meant.) Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD means Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. You made comments in the Historical revisionism (negationism) (disambiguation) → Revisionism and Gamecruft → Cruft discussions. Rossami (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Schwalker: ANI-notice|User:JPG-GR

Hello, Ludvikus. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic User:JPG-GR. Yours, --Schwalker (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm extremely unfamiliar with this kind of page. Can you please specify exactly what part to go to? Thanks. In the mean time, I'll guess. Please infom me if I'm in the wrong place. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiSkeptic: Historical revisionism

Exactly Ludvikus! Boodles is claiming Jap sex slavery is some undeniable historical fact, but there are plenty of cultural POV assumptions in his argument. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz (3): Proposed deletion of Historical revisionism (disambiguation)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Historical revisionism (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why tell me to improve it? Why don't you do that. My interest now is simply in WP:DAB and {{otheruses}}. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Historical revisionism (disambiguation) for an explanation of why I've proposed the deletion of the page. I recommend (once again) that you read and understand WP:DAB before you continue creating and expanding inappropriate disambiguation pages. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Try an impersonal tone with me - you'll be far more effective. Also, your condescention does not help either. --Ludvikus (talk)

User:Malik Shabazz (4): AfD nomination of Historical revisionism (disambiguation)

I have nominated Historical revisionism (disambiguation), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical revisionism (disambiguation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malik Shabazz (5): Historical Revisionism vs. Historical revisionism

The differentiation you are trying to make is wholly artificial. We already have two articles on the subject, Historical revisionism and Historical revisionism (negationism). You are attempting to make a third article, on the same topic as the second, using entirely non-standard naming conventions. The disambiguation link at the top of the Historical revisionism article is all that is required. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Appreciate your advice. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't rename an article (and an approach to historiography) when consensus is clearly against you. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boodlesthecat (1): Article name change

Please see the guidelines in "Wikipedia:Requested moves". Laudak (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. You are wrong again. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific as to what you want me to read. Since it's on Capitalization may I simply direct you to the following examples as to precedence:

Now what is your point? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you obviously still didnt read it. You don't get the difference between "American Revolution" and "Historical revisionism"? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:JPG-GR: Request to move article Historical Revisionism (negationism) incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Historical Revisionism (negationism) to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malik Shabazz (6): Talk:Revisionist Zionism

Please stop your disruptive behavior at Talk:Revisionist Zionism. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 16:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks, and inflamatory language. The word "behavior" is insulting and used against a child.
If you believe something is disruptive, then you have to tell me (1) why, and (2) how. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of renaming Revisionist Zionism was discussed and your suggestion was rejected. Continuing to push the issue by starting a new section is being disruptive. Please stop. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Boodlesthecat (2): Disruption

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it's just me and him latley - you haven't participated. So what consensus are you talking about? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editors in involved are:

How does discussion ~~among~~ between us ~~three~~ two on a Talk page constitute "disruption"? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You moved the Revisionist Zionism page against the consensus of multiple editors. Stop playing games and stop lying. You will be blocked if you don't stop. You should take this seriously if you want to constinue to participate in Wikipedia. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use the word "lying." You know that's insulting. So if I include you in the counting to determine consensus then we get two against one. And your colleague merely

Extended content
{{{1}}}

the discussion page. You did not participate on and before that moment. My Discussion established my point. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, Nudve, No. 57, Hertz188, Boodles. FIVE. Stop it. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flying tiger

You seem like a reasonable individual. Could you lend a hand with this user? First and foremost, his username is the name of a 1930s foreign-sponsored terrorist organization; second he's going around changing everything with a pro-Nationalist China bias. Thank you. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I appreciate that the voice of reason is often drowned out by the numerous voices of chaos and anarchy, but I will be glad to patrol some areas you need a hand in if you can tone Flying Tiger's terrorism just one notch. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malik Shabazz (7): FYI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing and page moves by User:Ludvikus. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 18:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

El_C (1): Move probation

Hi. With respect to moves, for the next month please restrict yourself to using the WP:RM procedure (to be closed by an admin) and not moving articles yourself. There's just been too many problems lately, so I think it'll help. Thx in advance for your understanding & cooperation. El_C 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But it seems you're taking a different ~~Stand on the Administrative Notice Board~~ "stand" on the "administrative notice board". I certainly wish to heed your advice. But please explain to me what exactly you mean by your statements on said board? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, by "next month" do you mean until June 8th? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following what you mean by this (oddly capitalized) "taking a different Stand on the Administrative Notice Board." 8th is fine. El_C 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm asking is if what you say here is the same as what you said there? That's all. I'm still not familiar with all the WP acronyms, that why I'm asking. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you addressing me in an administrative capacity, or merely as another WP user? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative capacity. I told those editors that a Request for comment (RfC — which was linked) may be the next step. El_C 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your ruling is that if I do not "move" any pages until after June 8 I'm OK regarding the incident with Shabazz? - that Shabazz can no longer take out an RfC on this dispute? --Ludvikus (talk)

What I'm saying is that for moves, use WP:RM for the next month and let the overseeing admin handle it. But an RfC can still be created (it is not an indictment, it is just a request for broader comments) about this or any other issue. El_C 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, you haven't solved anything. I want all issues resolved now. That's the only fair way to go. You have to deal with everything - and end it all. I'm ready, willing, and able to do that. So please do the rest of your job. Let's end everything now. So far you've only delt with one item. That's incomplete, I think. As you can see, I'm extremely cooperative with you. The other side has not addressed my situation at all. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it is really up to you and the other disputing parties to engage in dispute resolution to resolve your other outstanding issues. I'm just attending to the administrative side of it (the questionable moves), with this temporary formula that hopefully will keep the heat down considerably. El_C 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But put that in your summary there. List all the outstanding issue that remain unresolve. Say that there too, not just here. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure what issues remain unresolved, so I'm unable to list em. El_C 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you just ask the accusers to come foward and clarify their complaint there on the "ANB"? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to seek clarifications, feel free to engage those whom these are directed to. El_C 21:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. They said what the said. And I said what I said. You stepped in as anadministrator and took action. (1) You restricted me for one month, and (2) you advised me to remove certain names, and I've done so. It is now your duty to finish your jub. I think you should ask them what they want more, and to clarify their complaint. It's up to you I think to make things clear now so I know what's expected of me by Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am not obliged to mediate your dispute. If you wish to enter into mediation, there are volunteers who fill that role. El_C 23:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Random832 (1): Hi

I've noticed some of your edits have caused messed up display of special characters, [1] and [2] in particular - what web browser are you using? --Random832 (contribs) 20:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Netscape. But please tell me which is best for Wikipedia? And thanks a million for your observation!!!! --Ludvikus (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS:It does not look like my editing! I just checked! I do not recall working on those 2 particular parts. Are you sure you've got the right Wikipedian? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some old versions of netscape can cause problems, but I think there's now a workaround on the server side so you won't have to worry about it. And the actual edits were just changes to the external links section - the rest of the changes were due to the error rather than something you edited. --Random832 (contribs) 01:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Shabazz (8): RfD nomination of Union of Zionist -Revisionists

Malik Shabazz (9): Message

Hello. There's no reason why we can't work together, so long as you stop being disruptive in your editing. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 18:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But the so-called "disruption" is caused by your WP:Stalking of my editing and contributions. Everywhere I go you seem to be right behind my back. Anything I write you either Delete or Revert. If you stop tracking me down there will be no so-called "disruption." --Ludvikus (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ceedjee: some support

Hi,
You have recently granted a barnstar for peace to wikiskeptic...
I don't know him but I have some problem with him. Would you mind trying reasonning him and explaining him wp is not a battlefield and that this and this too is not very peaceful, whatever our mind on the matter...
Thank you in advance. Ceedjee (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I cannot help you at the moment because I'm in the middle of trying to put an end to the edit war I'm apparently still involved in. But if you help me now, I promise I will help you later. OK?--Ludvikus (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ONLY gave Wikiskeptic a Barnstar because he - of all people - came to my defense. I completely disagree with all those things he has on his Talk page. But he was the only one who defended me against unfair editors who persisted in attemting to get me into an edit war with them. Again, I hold views - from what I see posted there - completely opposite to his. Peace! --Ludvikus (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Txh for your reply.

I had already commented the talk page of the article about Marx's book before you answered me.

Support is not something to bargain. You should not give support to such guys... Whether or not he helped you...

Regards,

Ceedjee (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a strong believer in Freedom of the Press - that's the only thing I know I have in common with Noam Chomsky. By "support" I mean he did a the "right" thing by me - no one had done that. Support does not mean that I defend his position. It just means that he saw that I was being treated unfairly, and he stepped in in my defense. So he deserves my recognition. Notice, however, that I went out of my way to let people know that I hold nothing in common regarding his political, religious, or other views. But when I man clearly does the right thing by you, he deserve acknowledgment. Hasn't Western culture learned anything from that great Jew, Jesus Christ? Excuse me, (1) Was Jesus a Jew? And was he great? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What forgery? I'm going to assume good faith and assume you're just misreading somethign? Where did I change your comments? -WikiSkeptic (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You modified my amendment to the Barnstar I gave you. After I saw what was on your page I modified the Barnstar so people would know that what you believe is not what I believe! --Ludvikus (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did somebody else change my change to the Barnstar, or did you?--Ludvikus (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is just a mix-up. You put a Barnstar on my Talk Page and I moved to my user page as many editors do... Take a look on my user page and your original writing is all there--untouched. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote something on the Barnstar I gave you.
I the changed it so people would not confuse me with your postings.
The Barnstar was then changed back to what it was in the beginning.
Did you do that?
Or was it someone else? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's a bit confusing, maybe because of my inexperience with BarnStars--it's my first. 1. You put the BarnStar on my Talk Page. 2. Noticing that most people have it on their User page, I copied it there. 3. You updated the text on the Barnstar on my User page. 4. The text on the Talk page Barnstar remained unchanged. 5. So nobody changed your text. Sorry for the confusion--maybe proper procedure is for me to delete the Talk page Barnstar when moving it to the User page, I don't know.-WikiSkeptic (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Will you take my advice on your use of laguage against other editors? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how provoked you are, soldier, you will try your hardest to take a DEFENSIVE stand in your use of Language - which means you will NEVER use language which can be used against you to BAN you from Wikipedia. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME Soldier? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C (2): Tread lightly

It's getting too much. El_C 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think you need a break from Wikipedia for your last antagonistic comments. El_C 23:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you remove something from my page, please let me know about it. I think I could have handled him better than you. Perhaps it is you who need a break from Wikipedia. What is your beef? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an attack that has the word "lynching" in it, and is indented directly below my comment (as in, to me), then, no, I owe you no explanation. I'm a breath away from blocking you for disruption. El_C 23:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could you do that he used it, not me. It's seems you're confusing us two. I think you need the break, not me. Haven't you been paying attention? Haven't you noticed how I've been telling him not to use such language? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and Wikiskpetic need to stop. He already seemed to, then you come to further inflame the situation: saying I pick sides too quickly (what sides?) and that I speak to him like a child? (your imagination) If you make it a problem for me to deal with disruption, that is disruption. And, yes, I notice you just asked Wikiskeptic to come here to your aid ("solider") , which doesn't inspire confidence. Just stop and go do something else. El_C 23:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you bother to read his page, you would understand that he was a soldier. And if you paid better attention, you would have realized that the person who calmed him down was me, not you. I expect you to acknowledge the good that I have done in calming the man down. Admit that. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding all of that, you told me to step aside to let you deal with it, but I was already attending to it. El_C 23:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about being careful with language, I said I was a breath away from blocking, not banning you. And no, I am not confusing who said what. But I am disturbed that, after all the lengths I've gone to to explain to Wikiskeptic what the problem was, you had to slip that last comment. For what? How did it help? Trying to antagonize me; trying to get him going again? Had you said nothing and let the thread end, nothing would have happened and this whole unpleasant exchange we're having now would not be taking place. El_C 23:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the difference. And I consider you threatening and provoking me. If you Ban me it would constitute an abuse of your discretion. The man came to my defense because he thought you were unfair to me. And you were unfair to me, and now you persist in being unfair to me. Anyone who takes the trouble to look knows how much work I've put in to make Wikipedia a better place. And what do you do? You now are threatening me with being banned. You did nothing before in helping me out. You refused to make any effort to talk to the other editors involve. You are unfair to me - and that's what that editor recognized. He used that stupid word - and I explained to him not to do so. Now if you are going to be fair to me what you should do now is award me a Barnstar for good conduct, not threaten me with being "banned." --Ludvikus (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know the difference, but still saying "ban" in the same breath? How can that be? If anything, I have been more than fair with you, more than patient with you. Any other admin would have censured long ago, and much more severely than this generous probation. El_C 23:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not your mediator. You made many questionable moves, so you've been placed on a move probation. That's all there is to it. El_C 23:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that's true. Why then I owe you a Barnstar. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? El_C 23:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that you might very well be the most fair Administrator at Wikipedia. In that case I owe you a Barnstar. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know about that. I try to be fair. El_C 00:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you know, or should know, that I've only got a problem with one editor. You should know who I mean. Can't you ask him to get off my back? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who? Malik or Boodle? Again, I don't know what the disputes are about to comment. El_C 00:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to make this perfectly clear. Even if I attend to the issues posed by your many problematic moves by imposing a (only month-long, RM-only) move probation, that does not make me responsible to deal with your other disputes. You are responsible for your own actions. Thx. El_C 00:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting along with Malik. I understand him. He's a passionate Wikipedian and I have leaned how to get along with him. He's even helped me translate Russian text. And Boodle - have you forgotten that he asked for "Mercy" on my behalf on that noticeboard? My problem is with WP:Stalking Shabazz. He is doing everything in his power to get me in trouble. I think you have influence with him. Just ask him to get off my back. You can solve the problem by talking to him. Can you do that? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't pick up on any "mercy" pleas to forget. You say you get along fine with Malik and that you are stalked by Shabazz, but it's all one person: User:Malik Shabazz. I don't know about having influence with him. I spoke to him for the first time a few minutes ago. El_C 00:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just look over my page above? Whose name do you see? Shabazz! How come 2 pages are up for deletion by him? Because - for some reason, he's taken upon his shoulders the responsililty of policing me. Isn't that obvious? Do you think he just stunbled on those pages? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of names on this talk page. Which two pages? El_C 00:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shabazz - 2 notices for deletion by him. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Marx/Engels Collected Works - Shabazz --Ludvikus (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of Standard work - Shabbaz --Ludvikus (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of Historical revisionism (disambiguation) - Shabazz --Ludvikus (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of Historical revisionism (disambiguation) Shabazz --Ludvikus (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Revisionist Zionism -- Shabazz --Ludvikus (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI -- Shabazz --Ludvikus (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he noticed some issues with your edits and looked more closely into your contributions. Have you tried to resolve the dispute by speaking to him? El_C 00:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Got to his talk page - I addressed him as Malcom X (that's his namesake). Look what a nice message I left him - go look - please. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions

I am interested in what you have to say. I'm trying to find out when scholars/authors 1st started to use the expression Revisionist Zionism. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite amazed by the fact that that the older texts do not use this exact phrase. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Palestine Post, April 16, 1933, titles an article : Split among the Revisionist Zionists.

The article start by "The differences of opinion between the Revisionist Zionist Executive and their charmain Mr Jabotinksy have now lead to a definite cleavage".[3]

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. So we have, according to you, Revisionist Zionists or Revisionist Zionist. But we do not have an article on that. What it entails is quite simply Zionists who - within Zionism - were Revisionists. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-André Taguieff

Since you are French you might be interested in the above. Do you know that he is one of the world's great living authorities on the Protocols of Zion. But my French is too weak to understand him. It would be wonderful if you could contribute to this Article about this living French scholar. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I know him. I will take a look but I don' have much material concerning him.

Note I am not a French. I speak French. I am a Belgian. Ceedjee (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look below for material concerning him (external link --Ludvikus (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)):[reply]

External links

User:Random832 (2): AFD

I don't see any irregularities with how the AFD is listed. --Random832 (contribs) 18:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Listify" as an outcome at a category deletion discussion means to (usually) delete the category and to create an article that is a list of the articles that would have been in the category.
There are many kinds of templates, I don't know what one you're specifically referring to. --Random832 (contribs) 18:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, yes - why do you ask? Do you have a specific question? --Random832 (contribs) 18:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“

Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter.

”

--Random832 (contribs) 19:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malik Shabazz (10): Stalking

As you correctly note:

Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter. (emphasis added)

In my opinion, I've been correcting your disruptive edits. If you think I've been harassing you, please bring it up at WP:ANI. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

But why do you follow me around? There a 1,000 of editors who can put me in my place if I get out of line. Why are you making it appear that you are a special policement appointed to check up on me? Why? It's you that is disrupting me, not the other way around. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would stop disrupting Wikipedia, Ludvikus, (you might want to seriously consider and try to understand why you were put on move probation), no one would have to monitor you. please note, making the kind of false claims you are making against against Malik--for example, going to different places accusing him of Wikistalking--is a form of harassment on your part. If you continue harassing Malik, I will bring your behavior to the WP:ANI board. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huon: WikiProject Jewish question

I don't have any experience with templates. I could try and create a modified copy of Template:WikiProject Jewish history, but that template seems to be rather complex, for example using several subpages of the project page. I'll repeat the question Malik Shabazz asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history: Why create a new WikiProject for something that's already covered by another? I'm no expert on the Jewish question - is there an aspect that wouldn't be considered relevant to Jewish history? Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be much interest in the new WikiProject, and without members, the entire project is a little pointless, isn't it? My suggestion would be to recruit new members first, and to create a fancy template only when you have a couple of dedicated collaborators. Huon (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll respond in a moment. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the disambiguation page and the template. A beautiful template, but I'm not sure what precisely I was supposed to see. Huon (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that editors can work on their own (so do I), but I understood a WP:WikiProject to be a central place where editors interested in a certain topic can exchange views, have a to-do list and so on. That would be pretty useless for a one-man project, wouldn't it? A single editor can create subpages of his user page. A link I just found: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. Huon (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boodlesthecat (3): Proposed Speedy Deletion of List of Historical revisionism (revisionist historians)

Not sure what you are thinking by cutting and pasting from a Holocaust denial site and making it into a Wikipedia page, but it is nominated for Speedy Deletion. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my explanation (--Ludvikus (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)):[reply]

(cur) (last) 16:19, 11 May 2008 Boodlesthecat (Talk | contribs) (3,086 bytes)

   (Nominated for Speedy Deletion--page copied entirely from a Holocaust deniers website) (undo)

There is no violation of any law, rule, or policy, regarding a statement fact, such as a publishing a list of members in an organization in alphabetical order. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, quting 2 sentence from another text, in the United States, is perfectly legal and proper. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are the most notable individuals who expound Historical revisionism = Historical revisionism = Holocaust denial. I think the World should know who they are and what exactly is their "Philosophy"? Don't you? Also, I think so far the texts we're editing are exactly what these people say and write. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted

I think the following Speedy Deletion was a mistake (--Ludvikus (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)):[reply]

    (Deletion log); 16:55 . . Jpgordon (Talk | contribs)
         deleted "Talk:List of Historical revisionism (revisionist historians)"
         (G8: Orphaned talk page of non-existent or deleted page) 
    (Deletion log); 16:54 . . Jpgordon (Talk | contribs)
         deleted "List of Historical revisionism (revisionist historians)"
         (Copyvio; cut-and-paste from www.revisionsists.com)

Judging from the deleting admin's summary, that page was a violation of some website's copyright. That's a reason for speedy deletion, see WP:CSD#G12. Huon (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's a mistake. I did three things:

(1) Compile an Alphabetized List of people; that cannot possibly be a copyright violation. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(2) Quoted 2 sentences giving a word for word the statement for which these people stand. How could that be a copyright violation? People do that all the time - in book reviews, for example. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(3) I posted -- in good faith - an image which I consider to be a book cover. If that's a copyright violation, then the Image should be deleted, and not the Article/List. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a direct copyvio, then it cannot be in Wikipedia. It is considered a non-negotiable rule, with few exceptions - none of which apply to this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're too general. Be specific. Where's the violation? I cannot make a list of names because someone else has? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For obvious reasons I can't look at the deleted article, but if it was, as Jpgordon said, a cut-and-paste job, it surely was a copyright violation. If, as you wrote on the image page, the article was supposed to be "about the Web site", it may also fail our notability guidelines - I don't think the website itself is notable, see WP:WEB and WP:CSD#A7. Huon (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the List is Notable. I'm only interest in it - the List. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:CSDWarnBot: Redirect of List of Historical revisionism (revisionists)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of Historical revisionism (revisionists), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of Historical revisionism (revisionists) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of Historical revisionism (revisionists), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar, but while I removed the inappropriate speedy deletion tag (claiming that the page was a redirect to a non-existing page, which it clearly wasn't), I did send it to Articles for deletion, where it will be up for discussion for the next five days. The discussion for the specific article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Historical revisionism (revisionists). Feel free to add a comment there. Huon (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jc37: Reaffirmation of the 1-month move ban

I just found a talk page that you hadn't moved along with the article (which itself was moved several times), which was deleted due to being "orphaned".

I note that further up this talk page, EL_C suggests that you not move any pages for at least a month. I wish to reaffirm this.

So that there's no confusion, I'll give it a dealine of June 15 (arbitrarily chosen as the middle of the month).

Just to warn you, if you move any pages in the interim you may be blocked by any admin.

And when June 15th has passed, don't think that you now have a license to freely move pages. You'll certainly be under the watchful eyes of others.

In any case, please be more careful in the future, and give more thought to Wikipedia:Naming conventions when moving a page once your restriction is over.

Thank you. - jc37 03:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained, it was a mere "stub" (clearly so tabbed) and "underconstruction" (clearly so tabbed). If you truly wanted to know what happened, you should have consult with Administrator User:Jpgordon who was involved in the deletions - and he knows my work quite well. You, on the other hand, come in here out of the blue. How, and Why? Quite frankly, your tone here, that I'll be watched by "Big Brother" is highly WP:Disruptive. I think it would have been better if you stayed out of it since you are unfamiliar with what happened. Your threatening tone above makes me want to leave Wikipedia completely. If you were truly a good administrator, you would have taken the time to look at all the productive work I have already achieved over the years I've been here. (The fact is that I've been involved in a dispute with only 3 or so editors.) But it is this kind of tone which you show above - without a true understandin of what happen - make Wikipedia now an extemely unpleasant experience for me. If that is your true aim - well, then, your are succeeding - in encouraging me to leave Wikipedia on my own. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of assuming WP:Assume good faith, in your ignorance you distort the facts above. Administrator User:El_C also is familiar with the particulars, and I do not think he needs your help. He is quite capable of handling the matter. Why you've decided to come in with your "2-cents" above is one of the things that is wrong with Wikipedia. If your aim was to cause WP:Disruption by upsetting me so much by your above threatening tone under the appearance of a "warning" - as you can see - you have succeeded. The above is extremely provocative. You are not doing your job correctly at Wikipedia with respect to me. You have only succeeded in disrupting me from working at Wikipedia. I have recently received very good, practical advice from Admin. Jpgordon who is completely familiar with the incident. I suggest that you clime back into the hole out of which you just came out of - that's how upset I am by your extremely provocative tone. And I am - with great effort - restraining myself as to what I really want to say to you - as I am constrained by Wikipedia policy on no personal attacks - that's how upset I am by your totally insenitivity as regards proper Wikipedia decorum. Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things:

First, I welcome further comment by the others you name. And I have no doubt that they also typically welcome comment. That this can happen at any time is one of the great things about the Wikipedian community.

Second, Your seeming "cries of oppression and disruption" may not be as effective as you might like. Simply, if you are being disruptive you should cease the action, or others may likely help you to stop. (Which I note is what's apparently been going on.)

Third, to clarify my "tone":, it's "polite but firm". I welcome you to continue positively contributing to Wikipedia, but at the moment, you moving pages is apparently not a positive contribution and may be considered disruptive.

Fourth, I was and am reaffirming a restriction suggested by another. And being "out-of-the-blue" suggests that I'm neutral to you, and neutral to whatever articles under discussion. Last I checked, that makes me a nutral third party. And I'll be happy to help or to just "stand by", depending on what the other mediators would wish.

In the meantime, the restriction stands unless or until one of the other admins sees a reason to lift it.

And finally, please don't view this as a burden. There are a myriad of ways in which you can continue to positively contribute to Wikipedia, without the need to rename/move pages. And should such a want or need arise, feel free to request it at WP:RM. - jc37 17:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your change of tone - and I thank you for it very much. --Ludvikus (talk)
You'll find me very forgiving and extremely capable of compromise. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Move restrictions, Administrator User:El_C explained it to me very well, and I understand it. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding what you think of as a violation - I suggest you consult with Administrator User:Jpgordon who is a very capable administrator and of long standing who knows me relatively well. He deleted the Page at issue believing it to be a copyright violation under the Speedy Deletion policy. However, subsequently User:Huon arrive on the scene and removed replaced the Tag to a non-speedy deletion. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I subsequently, or simultaneously, edited it trastically - as WP policy encourages me to do. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were some technical problems regarding the disappearance of the Talk page. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a couple of request to fix matters and also tagged the page "cleanup" - hoping to alert a techy to the problem. --~~
To be continued [complex situation & I have to grab something to eat - please stay tuned.] ... --Ludvikus (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now as I tried to explain to you, this latest situation involved a Stub I created and Tagged Underconstruction. I realized that I could avoid the Page being pegged as a Copyright infringment by turning it into a page on my source - believing that I could establish the Notabiliy of the source, and subsequently writing the the members or listees were given to us by another - that would not be a Copyright infringement. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if I now assume WP:Good faith regarding your conduct towards me, I expect you to acknowledge that there was no violation on my part of El_C prior imposed Probation - can you do that for me? --Ludvikus (talk)
If and when this/these issue(s) are resolved between us, I wish to seek you advice and assistance regarding pressing issues of mine. Will you do that for me? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:BJBot: Orphaned non-free media (Image:Front page-revisionists.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Front page-revisionists.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cobaltbluetony: Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish question

I'm not sure what you mean. It should be obvious that I restored it per the request of Huon. Other than that I have no involvement in it. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boodlesthecat (4): Incivility, goading and personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks and civility policies. Comment on content, not on contributors. Your tone here, including your patently false accusations of disruption are way out of line. I suggest you reconsider your posture. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of "incivility" is a personal attack by you upon my person. Please stop. ----
Accusing me of "goading is a personal attack by you upon my person. Please stop. ----

Ignore these warnings at your own risk. You are on very thin ice. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find your threatinging tone in the above disruptive and provocative in the extreme. Please Stop! Please Stop! Please Stop! --Ludvikus (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not threatening you. What I am doing is supporting the statements and warnings of a number of editors above who have advised you to discontinue your disruptions of Wikipedia. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other editors. There's only you and User:Malik Shabazz. If you don't agree with me then (1) be specific, (2) assume good faith, and (3) seek consensus. Constantly bombarding me with your reckless accusation discredits my reputation on Wikipedia and only inflames me with rage. I am not a machine. I am a human being. Treat me with the respect I accord you. If you look carefully, I have never attacked you personally. I only have argued with you on the suject matter, and used descriptions of writing. I have never attacked you personally no matter how much you provoked me. I ask that you do the same with me. The fact that I disagree with you on issues is never meant as an attack on your person. Furthermore, I even went out of my way to acknowledge that you were seeking "mercy" on my behalf regarding User:Malik Shabazz's complaint against me. Let's find a way to get along. I am a very forgiving person. And I think you are a nice person too. But I cannot tolerate your repeated personal attacks and threats on me. As you can see I'm spending much time responding to you on this matter, rather than spending my time productively on articles' content. I only have a problem with you, and that other editor whom I shall not name now because he's not directly involved. I know you are passionate about your work here. But so am I. So let's find a way to make peace with one another rather than fight like school children in the school yard. Peace. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ludvikus, if you are not cognizant of all of the editors above expressing concerns about your editing behaviors and disruptions, PLUS all of the concerns expressed on ALL of the talk pages you hacve disrupted, then I cannot help you. If you want to continue to play the victim, and ignore the countless warnings you have received, as well as the reasons for your current block against page moves, then again, you do so at your own risk. It will not turn out happily for you if you continue to ignore all the advice and warnings you have received. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anthony.bradbury: Deletion Appeal

The accepted practice in the case of a disputed deletion decision is, first of all, contact the deleting admin and ask him/her to reconsider, or at least to explain, the decision. If this does not produce a satisfactory resolution to the problem, you have the right to post a request on WP:DRV, or, if all else fails, at WP:AN/I.

It is only fair to point out to you that the admin in question is exceptionally broadly experienced; he has deleted your article on the basis of its being a copyright violation, and if this is indeed the case then there is no chance of the article being restored. If you feel it is not a copyright violation then by all means argue your case. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malik Shabazz (11): Proposed deletion of The Jewish Question (texts)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Jewish Question (texts), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 01:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, can you please explain the difference between Jewish question (disambiguation) and The Jewish Question (texts)? Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question. (1) I did not rename it with "texts" at the end - someone else did. (2) I cannot give it an appropriate name - as you know - you helped put me on probation until June 15, 2008. So my hands are tied. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I wasn't clear. The content of the two articles appears to be the same. Can you please explain the difference. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

One page should be a DAB, the other, a list. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, both pages have the same content. Is there any reason why there should be two Wikipedia articles with the same content? Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No longer so - as you just discribed. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't see any substantive difference between the two pages. Ludvikus, if you can't explain why Wikipedia needs two pages with the same content, I'm going to nominate The Jewish Question (texts) at AfD. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) We only need to DAB four (4) things on the JQ: (1) Jq in general, (2) Bauer, (3) Marx, & (texts). --Ludvikus (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(2) The 4th thing is a WP:List
(3) Can you help?: The Jewish Question (texts) → Jewish question - list of texts) - The reasons are obvious. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia lists start with "List of ...", so the proper name would be List of ... what? books with "The Jewish Question" in their title? books about the Jewish question? Give the matter some thought before you start moving articles from one name to another. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) Don't worry. I learn my lessons. I will not Move anything (until June 15, 2008).

(2) Per your advice: The Jewish Question (texts) → List of texts on the Jewish question.

(3) PS: the time frame is obviously 1843 - 1948 (from Bauer to Israel)

--Ludvikus (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"List of texts on the Jewish question" is a limitless list. It could include every book written about antisemitism, Zionism, Jewish assimilation, Jewish emancipation, etc. Are you sure that's what you intend this list to be? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. It's a finite, well defined field - it is a Subject Classification of the Library of Congress. Librarians know pretty well what it means - they have to - they classsify books under it (or used to do so). --Ludvikus (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Philip Baird Shearer: Bold or disruptive

Few editors object to a little ginger on pages that have not changed much for several years, because that is often the way that pages can be improved. But there is a difference between being bold and being disruptive. I suggest that you read through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#General user conduct and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive, and consider if some of your recent behaviour over historical revisionism (and related pages and topics (see also Forum shopping)) is in any way reflected in the behaviour of those editors listed there. Usually other editors will try hard to accommodate an editor who is in a minority and is being disruptive partly because of the assumption of good faith and working towards a consensus, but also partly because the RfC process is time consuming and not very productive for anyone involved. However there comes a point where the time involved in an RfC is less than the time taken up with a disruptive editor in which case everyone looses. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll research what you've said. However, it seems to me it's merely a dispute between Bootles the Cat & myself. I will have much more faith in your recommendation if you post the same on Bootles Talk page. Thanks again. --Ludvikus (talk)
Although I have not studied yet the WP references you made in the above, and they are probably very useful, so I will study them at another time. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, I am extremely disappointed by the outrages implications you are making in the above. I request that you be specific as to exactly what you are talking about. How am I to know what you might be refering by the above? You obviously have something specific involved - but you expect me to read your mind in the above. Do you think I did something wrong at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? How would you respond if I posted such a vague implied analysis on your Talk page? Would you know what I meant by it? I think I deserve a Wikepedia Barnstar for all the wonderful work I've done here. Are you going to give me one for it? And if not - why not? As a matter of fact, the way you presented yourself in the above - without any specifics, is DISRUPTIVE in the extreme. Please explain yourself, so that I can regain my peace of mind. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk:JPG-GR (1): Request to move article Historical revisionism incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Historical revisionism to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:JPG-GR: Request to move article Historical revisionism incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Historical revisionism to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:JPG-GR: Request to move article Holocaust denial incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Holocaust denial to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough

You seem to be editing tendentiously, both on talk pages and in articles. This has been a problem before, and I am inclined toward adding greater restrictions, or just blocking for a few months, because problem areas keep reoccurring (incidentally, I notice you listing me on your user page, despite my explicit request you do not). A steep learning curve is not the same as a circular one. You are seeing no support from any other editors so far (at least ones in good standing) and you are excessively taxing our volunteer resources, with seemingly little returns. El_C 21:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing to try to reinvent the wheel without familiarizing oneself with the basics (or learning the basics on-the-fly), and it's another to do it over and over again. This account has been blocked for six month in Feb. 2007 and for two months in October 2007.^[4] But the same problems continue to reoccur. I am inclined to block for, say, two years. Does that make sense? El_C 22:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by virtue of long-term disruption, for an extended block duration of two years. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. El_C 23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here - to the right - is just one small sample of my Productive work on Wikipedia which the vast majority of editors aproved!
It is a difficult area to edit - for obvious reasons - but my work was approved by all within the community that works on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion where I am very well known by the dedicated editors there.
I think the problem is that User:El_C is both an Editor and an Administrator - and I'm not - and he disapproves of my editing of the article: On The Jewish Question.
It is also too easy to call someone disruptive and then point to events a year ago as proof that there was disruption here. I've learned much since, and WP:Good faith mistakes I may have made a year ago - when I was a novice - I know I do not make now.
I believe I have been WP:Bold rather than WP:Disruptive. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My main problem seems to be with user Malik Shabazz who I believe is WP:Stalking me for reasons I cannot comprehend.
With other editors - except one - I have had honest strong differences - but they have been resolved.
Editor User: Mikkalai was the sources of my bannishment last year, and though we've clashed this year, I've learned to get along with him - and with all due respect, if I can get along with him, I can do so with anyone else - without causing any disruption.
It is User:Boodlesthecat who's been in conflict with me lately. He has commenced an Email exchange with me and I am responding. Where it will lead - I do not know.
Also, I've been given very recently useful advice by administrator User:Jpgordon regarding the need to compromise at Wikipedia - and I've been listening to him. He even advised User:Boodlesthecat - effectively on my behalf - that the use of that synonym for "masterbation" ("ono ..." something) against me was not proper "Manners" at wikipedia even if what it implied were true. I endured that Disruptive provocation and responded appropriately.
Even Administrator User:Gwernol - who had blocked me three (3) times last year - contacted me this year regarding what I believe was a misunderstanding. We had an exchange. I explained myself. And he must have been satisfied because he dropped the matter. I think that if he thought that I was Disruptive he would have definitely blocked me. But he didn't. I assume because he was satisfied.
I've added Linked User names to each distinctly headed comment made by the editors who have communicated with me on this Tak page. That, I believe, helps in the impartial review of my conduct at Wikipedia. And I stand by that record. I have nothing to hide. Any impartial Administrator who wishes to determine if there was Disruption at Wikipedia, and determine its cause, needs now only to carefully scrutinize my Talk page.

--Ludvikus (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ludvikus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

?

Decline reason:

reason While I appreciate the succinct summary of your case, your request is declined. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

That is a highly misleading presentation. The problem is, in addition to your inexplicable approach to editing and talk pages that's driving anyone who is collaborating with you to exhaustion, is that you go back on your word, making a cumulative learning curve increasingly unlikely.

You agree to a month-long move probation, but you make moves (while an AfD is taking place) anyway; you agree not to add my and others' names to your user page, then you do it anyway; you agree not to add A World Without Jews to the lead without consensus, then you do it anyway. Not to mention you turn various talk pages into unreadable monstrosities; you risk breaching our living persons policy by conflating revisionism with Holocaust denial via a list of living persons copied from an unreliable webpage; you introduce copyrights violations by copying that entire webpage, as-an-article; you copy-paste library catalogues information or verbatim letters into (and in between) lead paragraphs of articles, carelessly breaking the continuity of the prose; you respond with passive-aggressive hostility to anyone who tries to, gently, point out to you the extent of your disruption (this being the latest); you fail to learn the most basic style conventions, making it everyone's job to fix after you; you refuse to admit there's a problem, despite everyone telling you that it is most pressing; shall I go on? It's exhausting just to list it all.

All are issues which saw you blocked before (from what I see, the six month and two month blocks were for these very same issues). All I've heard thus far from those familiar with you is support for my block. It is disingenuous for you to paint yourself as innocent and me as abusing my authority, when I have been so patient with you and have extended to you every opportunity and every courtesy within, and beyond, reason. El_C 15:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrence

I have independently reviewed the complaints against you and the resulting block without any request to do so from any other user or administrator. If you persist in aggravating this situation by continuing to argue on your talk page, I personally will either lock your talk page for the duration of your two year block from al but admin editing; or extend the existing block to indefinite. Please consider carefully the consequences of your words from this point on. If you prove yourself incapable of working within the community consensus that drives this project, you will be banned from it. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Administrator El_C

What you say above is specific and informative. But it's useless now - after the fact. I can only wish that you had been as explicit and concise as you are now. If I had known of these precise concerns of yours before I would have had an opportunity to deal with them. Now, however, it is too late - since I'm blocked for 2 years. I truly regret you never bothered to explain to me your concerns as clearly and precisely as you do now. In fact, when I pleaded with you previously for help, you said my problems were my own, and non of your concern. I remember that very well. You explicitly refused to deal with my complaints. You only were concerned with User:Boodlesthecat. My issues, you said, you did not care to address - or something to that effect? Remember? I remember it. That's the way I see the matter. As far as you were concerned - I was on my own. You asked be who the problem was Boodlesthecat or Malaki (Shabazz)? Unfortunately I confused the latter with User:Mikkalai with whom I get along now I think. So you did show some interest in helping me - but very, very little in fact. You left me to the fate of "trial by error." --Ludvikus (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't even begin to try to collect evidence of how many times you have been warned about everything that is discussed here. I fear it's too gargantuan a task. Suffice it to say, you've endured blocks before so you know what's expected of you. Moreover, you appear have an agenda for editing here that is too dangerous for Wikipedia, especially if you involve living persons or links to living persons implicated in your agenda. Don't even pretend that you are only recently aware of how the community views your actions, behavioral and otherwise. It's insulting to everyone's intelligence and further degrades your reputation here. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, the issues were (1) WP:Moves - for which Administrator User:El_C put me on probation until June 15, 2008, and (2) alleged Copyright infringement which were delt with by Administrator User:Jpgordon. Please do not engage in Ex post facto proceedings. Please do not makeup issues now which were non issues then. In my opinion these, at worst, were WP:Good faith errors on my part. As you are unfamiliar with the precise facts - because you were not involved - I think it is unfair for you to participate here. Please try to be fair to me. There is a reason this page remains open. I am doing my best to use it for its intended purpose as I understand it to be. If you think otherwise, please inform me specifically before you take such drastic action as you threaten to do in the above. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, User:Cobaltbluetony, you say above that you are "independent", but you in fact are not. It is you who deleted the following item: Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish question (a record of which is on your talk page). And I was responsible for it. It appears to me that this is the matter which may cloud your judgment with respect to me. I therefore ask you not to participate any further in this case. I do not think it is fair for you to take action here because of that matter. I do not think I did anything improper with regard to this item which you deleted. I sincerely believe that this issue was successfully resolved among us. Nevertheless, because you had deleted that Stub, it follows I think that you may not be fair to me. Please reconsider your actions with regards to me regarding this particular incident(s). (I am not as terrible a Wiki Editor as it would appear according to the depiction here.) Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion record of that page is as follows:

18:59, May 13, 2008 Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish question" ‎ (G10: Pure attack page or negative unsourced BLP: inflammatory) (restore)
09:10, May 7, 2008 Cobaltbluetony (talk · contribs) restored "Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish question" ‎ (10 revisions restored: per request)
09:06, May 7, 2008 Cobaltbluetony (talk · contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish question" ‎ (db-reason|should be in Wikipedia namespace, if at all; if moved, trans-namespace redirect should be deleted) (restore)

I deleted it because it was in the wrong namespace ({{G6}}), then restored it per request of User:Huon; it was then deleted as attack/inflammatory per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish question and {{G10}} -- but NOT by me.
While I am quite busy, I am trying to reconstruct a very complex chain of events, so if I've come off inappropriately harsh prematurely, I'll apologize in advance of the possibility of such a discovery -- and invite you to assume good faith on my part. Nevertheless, I remain deeply concerned as to your precise agenda here. This is not an assumption of bad faith, but a concern that your good faith efforts may be inexorably intertwined with a goal that may be fundamentally and diametrically opposed to those of the Wikipedia project. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone seen this movie?

The Memory thief. About this seriously disturbed and twisted non-Jewish kid who is obsessed with antisemitism and the Holocaust. Discussion made me think of it for some reason. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And while a search is currently going on for Diffs to use against me, I doubt anyone will find anything as outrages as this posting by User:Boodlesthecat which he made on the Talk page of Holocaust denial. I think I endured that very well. It was quickly deleted by another editor. But no one seems to care about the constant provocations I endure as demonstrated by the above. I have no understand of what the above was all about. However, it is at the very least disingenuous to pretend that this did not happen. Also, I think I should be complimented for handling it very well - rather than be blocked for 2 years. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ludvikus, remember me? Did you just get a two year block for turning talk pages into " unreadable monstrosities"? This entire block is outrageously unfair (and I think your last one was also). You should get another uninvolved administrator to review it. Regards, Ostap 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You are the only one so far to have come to my defense. I have no idea at this moment about how to do what you recommend. Furthermore, it may be impossible to do. But check out that "movie" question by Bootlesthecat. I'm curious what you think about that. I truly do not understand what Bootles-the-cat wanted to accomplish by it? Anyway - do appreciate very much your putting in a good word in my behalf. It appears at the moment that I am one of the most horrible editors Wikipedia ever had. So thanks again, Dear User:Ostap. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you and I had worked together on Ghetto benches, is that right? What do you think of its current status? Has it improved on the years? Also - I notice that your history pages, etc., have disappeared. What happened? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THE LIFE AND CHARACTER OF SOCRATES

by Moses Mendelssohn- Here's a beautiful External link for WikiPedians to read, and maybe use productively. [5] --Ludvikus (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great. A link to a website of the fascist antisemite Lyndon Larouche is now a "beautiful external link." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whaw - that I didn't notice!!! However ... --Ludvikus (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, Boodles-the-cat, there's of some good in every bad thing. One of my treasures is a Pamphlet in which is published a translation into English of an important publication by Georg Cantor. Guess who had it translated and published? Yep - Lyndon Larouche. (It pleases me to be able to know, however, your stand on him, and on Fascism. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the Article seems like a good rendition, or do you think otherwise? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Par for the course. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've learned something from me? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't trust or even bother reading a fascist's translation of Mendelssohn or Cantor. And yes, I learned that you still don't pay attention to what you post. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But your extreme caution and scrutiny of sources you've learned from me, no? At least so for now, right? Come on. Admit it. It can't heart you now. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But more important, now that you volunteer that you are anti-Fascist, how do you justify what appears to me to be WP:Forking? How come we were not on the same side:

Historical revisionism vs. Historical revisionism (negationism) --Ludvikus (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, having unequivocally expressed your personal political position, pray tell, how is it that you seem blind to the fact that James M. McPherson's article (he's President of the American Historical Society) on Revisionist Historians is used as a reference to support ehe legitimacy of Historical Revisionism. Do you really believe that the latter belong to the former? Was Gabriel Kolko a Revisionist Historian, and does that make him into a Historical Revisionist? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I learned from you is that I had to spend a ridiculous amount of time scrutinizing with caution everything you post. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How was I to blame for that? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Boodlesthecat, if you want to know why User:El_C Blocked me for two years, let me give you the reason - it has nothing to do with you. It's because I dared to tampered with his baby, On The Jewish Question - here's by conclusive proof to the real reason for it (I'll supply the Diff's in a moment - a picture is worth 1,000 words):

    (cur) (last)  21:18, 13 May 2008 El C (Talk | contribs) (23,502 bytes)
          (Revert questionable edits again) (undo) 
    (cur) (last)  11:42, 13 May 2008 SmackBot (Talk | contribs) m (23,670 bytes)
          (Date the maintenance tags and general fixes) (undo)

It's a shame that Administrators are also Content Editors - that creates a conflict of interests - as clearly happened here. He was EXTREMELY pissed that I dared to Edit HIS article on On The Jewish Question. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These uncivil sorts of comments are exactly the sort of comments that are going to get your 2 year block extended to indefinite. But your history in failing to heed warnings suggests you won't heed this one either. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- And here's the Diff for it: [6]. That is exactly why he was so angry with me. I was being WP:Bold. I think if you study my editing over time you'll find that my version is the better one. But User:El_C thinks otherwise. So he REVERTS, and then comes to threaten me with being Blocked for two years. I do not think he should have used his power as an Administrator to Block me when the Real reason was that he hated my version of his edited version of said article. That is the simple truth of exactly where he's coming from. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that you call a Defense "Uncivil"? If what I say is true, it is not "Uncivil." --Ludvikus (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, Boodle, how can you lecture me on Civility? Didn't Administrator User:Jpgordon correct you in your "manners" regarding that word "Ono..." which I shall not repeat? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying you "dared to tampered with his baby" is quite uncivil, and more than a bit divorced from reality, since User:El_C barely edited that article at all, other than to revert a few of your disruptive edits. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that that's a rather mild way of paraphrasing a 2-year block, wouldn't you think so if you were much less personally involved in the matter? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You, of course, would know since you had edited it with me recently. But if you go back in time to the diff of the past like so: [7], you will find that he must have been extremely unhappy with the version he edited and approved in 2006. I then come along and edit it. He is discussed by what I did and uses the occusion to Block me for 2 years because I will not "behave" - meaning leave his & your version alone. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boodles, tell me, what do you think of my version before he reverted it? [8] --Ludvikus (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]