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

8 June 2024
News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023 Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024 Opinion: Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth Featured content: We didn't start the wiki Essay: No queerphobia Special report: RetractionBot is back to life! Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer Comix: The Wikipediholic Family Humour: Wikipedia rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox Concept: Palimpsestuous
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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)

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]

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]

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:

1. Jewish question
2. Jewish Question
3. The Jewish Question
4. On The Jewish Question
5. Historical revisionism
6. Historical Revisionism
7. American Revolution
8. French Revolution

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]

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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]

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)

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:

• User:BoodlesthecatUser talk:Boodlesthecat
• User:Malik ShabazzUser talk:Malik Shabazz

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

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

I have nominated Union of Zionist -Revisionists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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]

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]

1. I wrote something on the Barnstar I gave you.
2. I the changed it so people would not confuse me with your postings.
3. The Barnstar was then changed back to what it was in the beginning.
4. Did you do that?
5. 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]

1. 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]

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]

1. Proposed deletion of Marx/Engels Collected Works - Shabazz --Ludvikus (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Proposed deletion of Standard work - Shabbaz --Ludvikus (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Proposed deletion of Historical revisionism (disambiguation) - Shabazz --Ludvikus (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. AfD nomination of Historical revisionism (disambiguation) Shabazz --Ludvikus (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Talk:Revisionist Zionism -- Shabazz --Ludvikus (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. 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

• Pierre-André Taguieff on the new "anti-Zionism"
• About Pierre-André Taguieff : The Force of Prejudice. On Racism and Its Doubles
• Rethinking anti-Racism by Pierre-André Taguieff
• "The Illuminati fair : Esotericism, Plot Theory, Extremism"

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

1. I appreciate your change of tone - and I thank you for it very much. --Ludvikus (talk)
2. You'll find me very forgiving and extremely capable of compromise. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. I subsequently, or simultaneously, edited it trastically - as WP policy encourages me to do. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. There were some technical problems regarding the disappearance of the Talk page. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. I made a couple of request to fix matters and also tagged the page "cleanup" - hoping to alert a techy to the problem. --~~
8. To be continued [complex situation & I have to grab something to eat - please stay tuned.] ... --Ludvikus (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. 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]
10. 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)
11. 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]

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]

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]

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]

1. Accusing me of "incivility" is a personal attack by you upon my person. Please stop. ----
2. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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]

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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]

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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]

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]

The Protocols
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion Versions of The Protocols Contemporary imprints of The Protocols
First publication of The Protocols
Programma zavoevaniya mira evreyami
Writers, editors, and publishers associated with The Protocols
Carl Ackerman Boris Brasol G. Butmi Charles Coughlin Natalie de Bogory Denis Fahey Henry Ford L. Fry H. A. Gwynne Harris Houghton Pavel Krushevan Ernest G. Liebold Sergei Nilus George Shanks Fyodor Vinberg Clyde J. Wright
Debunkers of The Protocols
Vladimir Burtsev Herman Bernstein Norman Cohn John Shelton Curtiss Philip Graves Michael Hagemeister Pierre-André Taguieff Lucien Wolf
Commentaries on The Protocols
The International Jew Mein Kampf

• 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]

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]

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?

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]

1. 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]
2. 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]

1. 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 have 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]

1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Boodles, tell me, what do you think of my version before he reverted it? [8] --Ludvikus (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with all of your edits, it made a mess of the article. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. You're entitled to your opinion. But think what I did. I used essentially the {{Main|"name of article}} function/tag. I really thought that El_C would be pleased. You know he's got a picture of the Marxist Che Gevara (Che Guevara) posted on his Talk page. So I thought he would be happy if a made Marxism the Main page. How was I to know that that would piss him off? I'm not a mind reader. The fact is - it is what i had done to the On The Jewish Question article which was the final straw (or next to it) which got him so made that he put a 2 year block on me. That I'm sure of beyond a reasonable doubt. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here - below — is what I think was El_C's immediate reason for Blocking me for two (2) years - the opening of the On The Jewish Question (--Ludvikus (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)):[reply]

Part of a series on
Marxism
Theoretical works Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 The Condition of the Working Class in England The German Ideology The Communist Manifesto The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte Grundrisse Capital Critique of the Gotha Programme Dialectics of Nature The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State What Is to Be Done? The Accumulation of Capital Philosophical Notebooks Terrorism and Communism The State and Revolution Essays on Marx's Theory of Value History and Class Consciousness Prison Notebooks The Black Jacobins On Practice Theses on the Philosophy of History Dialectic of Enlightenment A Critique of Soviet Economics The Long Revolution Guerrilla Warfare The Wretched of the Earth Reading Capital The Society of the Spectacle Pedagogy of the Oppressed Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses Ways of Seeing How Europe Underdeveloped Africa Social Justice and the City Women, Race and Class Marxism and the Oppression of Women Imagined Communities Hegemony and Socialist Strategy The Sublime Object of Ideology Time, Labor and Social Domination The Age of Extremes The Origin of Capitalism Empire Late Victorian Holocausts Change the World Without Taking Power Caliban and the Witch An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital Capitalist Realism Capital in the Anthropocene
Philosophy Alienation Dialectical materialism Ideology Philosophy of nature Philosophy in the Soviet Union Reification
Critique of political economy Capital (accumulation) Crisis theory Commodity Concrete and abstract labor Factors of production Falling profit-rate tendency Means of production Mode of production Capitalist Socialist Productive forces Scientific socialism Surplus product Socially necessary labour time Value-form Wage labour
Sociology Base and superstructure Bourgeoisie Class Class consciousness Classless society Commodity fetishism Communist society Critical theory Cultural hegemony Democracy Dictatorship of the proletariat Soviet Radical Democratic centralism Exploitation False consciousness Human nature Immiseration Imperialism Lumpenproletariat Metabolic rift Proletariat Private property Relations of production State theory Working class
History Class struggle Historical determinism Primitive accumulation Proletarian revolution World revolution Theory of historical trajectory
Aspects Aesthetics Archaeology Criminology Cultural analysis Cultural Studies Ethics Film theory Geography Historiography Literary criticism Marxism and religion Sociology Philosophy
Common variants Structural Autonomist Marxism–Leninism Guevarism Maoism Titoism Neo-Gramscianism Regulation school Trotskyism Third-worldist Hegelian Budapest School Frankfurt School Humanist Neue Marx-Lektüre Open Political Praxis School Both Black Classical Communization Feminist Leninism Neo Post Western
Other variants Analytical Austromarxism Centrist Council communism Eurocommunism Instrumental Marxism–Leninism–Maoism Nkrumaism Orthodox Revisionist Situationist Socialism with Chinese characteristics Wertkritik
People Marx Engels Morris Lafargue Kautsky Plekhanov Du Bois Connolly Lenin Luxemburg Liebknecht Kollontai Bogdanov Trotsky Grossman Zinoviev Bloch Lukács Korsch Bukharin Ho Serge Gramsci Galiev Pashukanis Bordiga Benjamin Mao Basu Mariátegui Horkheimer Dutt Brecht Marcuse Kalecki Fromm Cox Lefebvre James Adorno Padmore Sartre Deutscher Beauvoir Sombart Nkrumah Sweezy Emmanuel Hill Bettelheim Draper Jones Hobsbawm Althusser Hinton Williams Freire Mandel Sivanandan Miliband Cabral Thompson Bauman Fanon Kosik Berger Castro Guevara Liebman Heller Guattari Mészáros O'Connor Wallerstein Mies Tronti Debord Amin Hall Nairn Parenti Negri Jameson Dussel Harvey Laclau Bahro Poulantzas Vattimo Badiou Harnecker Altvater Anderson Löwy Vogel Sison Easthope Rancière Berman Przeworski Cohen Therborn Losurdo Ture Postone Rodney Bannerji Spivak Newton Sakai Wood Federici Wolff Balibar Eagleton Kurz Hartsock Rowbotham Mouffe Geras Brenner Davis Massey Cleaver Bishop Haraway Panitch Clarke Jessop Davis Wright Fraser Burawoy Holloway Rose Screpanti Tamás Hampton Cano Žižek Berardi Sankara Hennessy McDonnell Douzinas Roediger Foster West Ghandy Marcos Heinrich Prashad Kelley Dean Lordon Linera Fisher Li Coulthard Malm Seymour Toscano Bhattacharya Moufawad-Paul Srnicek Horvat Hamza Saito
Journals Antipode Capital & Class Capitalism Nature Socialism Constellations Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory Historical Materialism Mediations Monthly Review New Left Review Race & Class Rethinking Marxism Science & Society Socialist Register
Related topics 21st-century communist theorists Anarchism Creative destruction Conflict theory Criticism of Marxism Communism Communalism Economic determinism History of communism Left-wing politics Marxian economics New Left Old Left Municipalism Political ecology Socialism Authoritarian Democratic Market Reformist Revolutionary Utopian Left-wing populism Universal class Vulgar Marxism Economism Worker cooperative Workers' council
Outline Communism portal Philosophy portal Socialism portal

On the Jewish Question is a work by Karl Marx, written in 1843, and first published in Paris in 1844 under the German title Zur Judenfrage in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.

The essay criticizes two works^[1],[2] regarding the Jewish question in Prussia by Marx' fellow Young Hegelian, Bruno Bauer.Bauer argued that Jews can achieve political emancipation only if they relinquish their particular religious consciousness, since political emancipation requires a secular state, which he assumes does not leave any "space" for social identities such as religion.^{[citation needed]} According to Bauer, such religious demands are incompatible with the idea of the "Rights of Man." True political emancipation, for Bauer, requires the abolition of religion.^{[citation needed]}

It has been used as a bases for the claim that Marx was an antisemite.

It was one of Marx's first attempts to deal with categories that would later be called the materialist conception of history.^{[citation needed]}

• I think that such an important article should have each significant sentence foot-noted/referenced. You, Boodle, and El_C, obviously think otherwise. I also think that any interpretation belongs much lower down. First we should identify what the work is. Obviously, you and he think otherwise. I think if you and he objectively study what I had done - as a WP:Bold editing job, you would acknowledge that you both were unfair to me as regards this particular issue - which, as I say, is the immediate cause of El_C feelings that I was disruptive. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• By way of interjection, perhaps this [9] little gift will calm El_C down a bit against me (it's better than your gift to me Boodles). --Ludvikus (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for interrupting, but isn't it considered bad form for an administrator to block an editor he is in a content dispute with? Ostap 02:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the history--the admin was not in a content dispute but intervened in an unsuccessful attempt to encourage Ludvikus to cease his incessant disruptive behavior. When Ludvikus refused to desist, after many warning, he was blocked. The only content changes were to edits Ludvikus made which were unanimously agreed by multiple editors to be highly disruptive. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are one of the users involved with this dispute, can you explain specifically what Ludvikus did to deserve a two year block? I must admit, I can see no justification for it. Ostap 03:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the history, it's all there. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And when you do read - very carefully I must say - the history, you will discover the following facts:

1. A substantial Content dispute at On The Jewish Question with Administrator User:El_C.
2. A substantial Content dispute at Holocaust denial, On The Jewish Question & related sites with User:Boodlesthecat
3. A substantial Content dispute at these sites & unrelated sites with WP:Stalker User:Malik Shabazz

Cheers, --Ludvikus (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the problems at Wikipedia is that Administrators from different Pages who had a Content dispute with a Bold user can easily joint forces to make it appear that there is a failure in reaching a consensus - when in fact a mere content dispute occurs with 2 or 3 users and make up New charges which were in fact a non-issue previously.

1. The reason given for the 2-year Block by User:El_C was WP:Disruption. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. A content dispute had occurred in which Administrator User:Jpgordon Speedily Deleted a Stub on the grounds of WP:Copyright infringement. It was, subsequently, undeleted from it's Speedy deletion state. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Next, out of the blue, an Administrator & Content disputer drops by reinforces the 2 year block by calling Copyright issue a Living persons issue. Look below for the correspondence (Ludvikus (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)):[reply]

• This so-called Disruptiveness is in really what is knoen as the Tyranny of the Majority — by which I mean two against one per Article, and these two's collect & gang up from other pages to give: Consensus = 2 + 2 . . .. It's a highly misleading phenomena at Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Ludvikus (talk · contribs)

I have reviewed this situation and commented accordingly on the user's talk page. I have had little interaction with this user, but from my vantage point, this user has an agenda, and that includes not working within the community so as to push it. Since it is an especially incendiary agenda that seems to involve living persons, I see an indefinite block as the only eventual next step, but will, in your spirit, acquiesce to the two years, provided that he does not aggravate the situation or create sockpuppets. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I greatly appreciate you having taken the time to review the matter. Absolutely, I am more than happy (read: relieved) to have you take the administrative lead from now on, since, as you can no doubt gather, it's been an exhausting one! El_C 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to burden you with this matter further, but the user is asking for concise explanations again. Can you provide individual diffs of each individual time the user was warned of behavior or policy on his or any other talk page? I would like the record to be consolidated and clear. At your earliest convenience, of course. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember at least one warning that he deleted. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'I won't even begin to try to collect evidence of how many times he has been warned about everything that is discussed there.' Before I spend hours of my time getting the permanent links, go through his talk page from beginning to end, go through my talk page from beginning to end (there's +20 comments from him starting here), then let me know if you still have questions. This line of argument is not unusual for him: "You're too general. Be specific.";" If you don't agree with me then (1) be specific"; "Please be more specific"; "I request that you be specific"; "without any specifics, is DISRUPTIVE in the extreme." This is what he says when various users explain to him that there are problems with his approach to editing. (ctrl f. "specific"; it's all from his talk page) How is it that all these different editors are out to get him with unsupported generalities? Thanks. El_C 21:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So Administrator User:Cobaltbluetony drops in from the blue sky and -- with his own content dispute issue with Ludvikus -- joins forces with Adminstrator User:El_C - with the new claim that there was a Living persons issue. Does User:El_C come to Ludvik's defense? No. Does he say that the problem was ONLY Disruption? No. He lets that false claim stay. And Ludvikus remains Blocked for 2 years. Is this fair? No. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by the way I do not have an Agenda. If I did it would be to improve the quality of the Administrative action procedures at Wikipedia. One way to do so would be to force Administrators to make a choice: if you edit an article do not act as an administrator with an editor with whom you have or had a Content dispute - recuse yourself. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also surprised by the red herring of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry introduced by User:Cobaltbluetony. What's that all about? --Ludvikus (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm amazed at how you have inferred more to my statements than I actually said. IF you were to create sockpuppets or further aggravate the situation, I would pursue an indefinite ban. Infer nothing else to that. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Thanks for the clarification. But why smear my reputation any further? Why assume that I would do such a thing?
    2. Furthermore, I note your self-serving selectivity here. How come you give no explanation regarding your allegation as to my publishing the names of Living Persons?
    3. Did you make that up as you went along?
    4. Did you ever express that concern of yours directly to me before? Of course not!
    5. What is the real reason you wish to get on the ban wagon in support of my block for 2 years?
    6. Isn't it a fact that you simply had a Content dispute with me? And now you saw your golden opportunity to put the final nail in the coffin? Now you know that's the truth!
    7. So far none of you mere three (3) fellows seem to have been able to find a single Diff to support your untruthful allegation that I've violated any Wikipedia policy. It was simply a Content Dispute I had with you editors. And from different pages, you've ganged up on me. Consensus does not mean forming gangs - or WP:Stalking to promote your own Agenda - in which you to get others to keep their hands off your privately editor Articles. Isn't that really why I'm Blocked for 2 years? And I know you are a new Administrator. So you wish to be on the good side of Administrator El_C - especially since you are both interested in the Jewish question in which I'm interested as well. But since you find my editing inconsistent with your views, you've dubbed me a disruptor. Let me see you answer that, wonderful new Administrator who decided to Confirm El_C 2-year ban. He (El_C) has been unable to show how I've been disruptive claiming that it would take hours of research. And he refuses to help you out in finding the Diffs - I'm quite certain that you've spent at least a day looking for them. Why haven't you found any Diffs? I'll tell you why - because there aren't any. All you can do is point to my previous difficulties when I was just a novice and didn't know how to handle such predicaments as here. Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email me please your views! --Ludvikus (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the blocking administrators say they seem to see an agenda. Will one of them please explain what it is that they see? Ostap 20:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, User:Ostap. Good question - what is my Agenda? Obviously it must be a Disruptive one. So what's my "disruptive agenda" - can you please post it here so everyone can understand why it is necessary to Block me for 2 years for it? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I remember now, Ostap, we're connected through Drohobych. I notice it's an article that's terribly neglected. Bruno Schultz hailed from there before the Nazis killed him. It would be good to put that fact in, since he's one of its native sons. The murals he painted there for his Nazi "protector" have wound up in Israel. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Correction - I was misled by that blank space - so I didn't see the rest of the article. Can that be fixed, Ostap? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to fix it. See, this is what the blocking administrators have caused. You could have fixed it yourself, but now we have to wait two years. And there is still no word on what your "agenda" might be... Ostap 23:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and give an explanation. I believe that the "agenda" revolves around Ludvikus' relationship to antisemitism and holocaust denial, especially his changes to historical revisionism and historical revisionism (negationism). Here Philip Baird Shearer explains to him the difference between the terms and why we need two articles. To my understanding Ludvikus was familiar with the "falsifiers of history" meaning but doubted that another existed. Ludvikus is given explicit sources about the non-perjorative meaning here. He set off creating various disambiguation pages and proposing mergers. To me, the most absurd of these was Historical revisionism (negationism) (disambiguation) - what was that supposed to disambiguate? Also note that he continued to call for disambiguation after it had been pointed out to him that the articles already contained hatnotes referring to each other and thus were properly disambiguated, see here. So here he's disrupting Wikipedia by knowingly making useless edits, which get promptly reverted.

Next, he started to move pages here and there, apparently not even agreeing with himself where they should belong. For example, he tried to move Historical revisionism (negationism) first to Historical Revisionism (negationism), claiming it to be a proper noun without sources, then to Denial revisionism although at that time several sources referring to the "non-academic" methods as "historical revisionism" had been shown to him. None of these moves were previously discussed on the talk pages, and at least one was repeated after being reverted - again, without any attempt to discuss it. I believe these moves were at least part of the reason for El C to institute a move probation.

Then, Ludvikus found this page and tried to make it into a Wikipedia article under the titles of List of Historical revisionism (revisionist historians) and, once that was deleted as a copyright violation, List of Historical revisionism (revisionists). The second was AfD'd here. During the discussion, Ludvikus moved the article to www.revisionists.com, technically violating the move probation. To me, not even the titles (except the last one) make any sense. I'm not sure whether this was the WP:BLP issue mentioned above, but that website does list quite some living persons, and while many of them do deny the holocaust, not all do, and some aren't even historians at all.

The last actions on this line of "work" was his proposal to merge Historical revisionism (negationism) into Holocaust denial, see the talk page for the proposal and for why it's a bad idea (and how Ludvikus disputes that).

To summarize: Ludvikus has suggested lots of merges, moves and the like, and created several disambiguation pages, despite being told that (and why) it's a bad idea. All his changes along these lines have been reverted by several editors (I counted at least four or five, plus several admins). Obviously, a lack of consensus (or, more precisely, a lack of any support whatsoever) doesn't discourage him, concerning both content (for example whether there are two types of historical revisionism or not) and style (for example how to disambiguate). When he has learned of some tool, be it disambiguation or the {{main}} template, he uses it without caring whether it's appropriate. In effect, he requires other editors to constantly look after him and revert his low-quality edits. Of course he also makes good edits, but I fear the ratio of good to bad isn't impressive, and his tendency to repeat the bad ones after having been told that and why they're bad ideas surely is disruptive.

There are other issues concerning other articles, for example sloppy research concerning the English title of Marx' essay On The Jewish Question, which gets coupled with yet another soon-to-be-reverted move that apparently only intended to link Marx more closely to antisemitism - that's tendentious editing. So it's not just the historical revisionism articles, but a common trend for all Ludvikus' edits. Huon (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered writing in a new genre, the genre of silence? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, here's the person who's responsible for the predicament herein. Tell us, User:Malik Shabazz, why have you been WP:Stalking this editor? Look at the problem you have caused User:El_C. It is you who has an Agenda. What exactly is your Agenda? Can you explain please? I'm very, very curious. El_C thought you were the problem, but unfortunately I confused you with User:Mikkalai with whom I get along well. And if I can get along with him, you are certainly very easy. So, please tell us, what's your beef exactly? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I also totally fail to understand your hidden reference to Isaac Babel - can you enlighten me, please? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm waiting! Or is it you who is writing to us now in the genre of silence? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tell us, User:Malik Shabazz, can you now for a few moments abandone your gendre of scilence in the light of the Greats above? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• You have coomunicate no less that eleven (11) times on my Talk page - why adopt the gendre of silence now? Has the cat got your tongue? Isn't it a fact that it is you - more than anyone elae - who has been the disruptor in this incident? No gendre of silence please. Let User:El_C know what you have done to create this disturbance - as you continue to provoke even now. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still waiting. I cannot read your invisible writing. Please explain your WP:Stalking of this editor? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• So all you can do (to resolve things) at Wikipedia now is provoke, right? Or are you just affraid that everyone will know that it's you who created this mess through your WP:Stalking? So now you hope that I will be silent in order to cover up your central disruptive role in this incident! --Ludvikus (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no agenda except improving the encyclopedia. As I've explained several times, I never stalked you. I went through your edit history and tried to fix some of your problem edits. (For example, compare your version of Dagobert D. Runes to mine. Likewise, your version of Marx/Engels Collected Works and mine.)

I'm sorry that you haven't learned anything from the two lengthy blocks you had last year. I hope you take the time to read Wikipedia: The Missing Manual during your two-year Wikibreak and come back ready to collaborate on writing encyclopedia articles. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 01:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

1. You're not being forthright for several reasons:
2. You were one of those who was in content dispute(s) with me previously - when I was blocked in part because of you, correct?.
3. You now, upon my return, took it upon yourself - to follow me around - to correct every single item I edited.
4. You were deliberately WP:Stalking me in order to provoke & disrupt me - is that not true? Of course it is!
5. And now you are completely incorrect when you say that I've not improved. I have improved tremendously, and you of all people knows it. But you will not admit it because you have a vendetta against me - it is you who has the agenda. You must feel that I wronged you last year - and you have been seeking your revenge. Is that not you Agenda? Of course it is!
6. Instead of generalizing - why don't state here exactly what your beef with me is? It's not enough for you to get on the ban wagon with your "friend(s)" here, particularly User:Boodlesthecat.
7. If you really wish to improve Wikipedia, explain exactly what you found wrong with my editing that made you follow me to almost every article I wrote (after my return from exile) and made it look like the consensus was against me because you always side with the other side.
8. Explain exactly - so everyone knows - that it was your calculated effort to WP:Stalk me which made me look like I was disruptive - when it was you who was the main provocature.
9. Don't you have any faith in the thousands of other Wikipedian who could put me in my place if I was not up to par?
10. How is it that you decided that you needed to follow me around. Why?
11. Inform us exactly what your involvement with me previously was when I was blocked in part, because of you, right?
12. Cheers, Wikipedians. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had nothing at all to do with your previous blocks. If you remember, before your last block I helped you create Template:The Protocols. As I wrote, my only agenda is improving the encyclopedia. That means: I try to follow WP policies and guidelines and abide by consensus. I don't go around creating disambiguation pages willy-nilly, naming and renaming articles because I can't decide what the right name is, disruptively proposing that articles be renamed, moving articles while the discussion is still on-going, etc. When I draft an article, I do it in my User space and copy it into main space when it's reasonably finished (see the first public version of Aaron Lopez); I don't create one-sentence stubs with copy-and-paste card catalog data and throw a hissy-fit when other editors propose that they be deleted. Would you like me to continue, or are you starting to understand what other editors mean when we say that you are a disruptive editor? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: None of this should be news to you, because other editors and I have written to you about these things on your Talk page during the past two weeks. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"User:Boodlesthecat, while User:Malik Shabazz is maintaining his gendre of silence, could you please try to explain what you hoped to accomplish when you posted the above on the Talk page at Holocaust denial? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)" BoodlestheCat[reply]

==Last warning about forging my name on posts, Ludvikus==

• The Cut & Paste is an exact quote of your writing, Bootles! --Ludvikus (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I'm going top tell you, Ludvikus to stop forging my signature on posts, like you did here for the second time I'm not going to tell you again. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a "forgery." The date is there. It is a Cut & Paste. You put that on the Holocaust denial page in order to Provoke and Disrupt me. Admit it. You did it. And I want everyone to know that you did not succeed by such provokation. The person who should be Blocked for 2-years is you, User:Boodlesthecat. It that not exactly what you posted on that talk page? Why do you object now to have it on my talk page? I just want to show how unfair things are. How come you are permitted to get away with such disruption? Can you explain that to me? What is it that you have - that I do not? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• People Cut & Paste their WP:Banner from one page to another. I wish to keep a record of you provocation here - so everyone can see how well I handled your provocation. I deserve a WP:Barnstar for it. Can someone please award me a Barnstar for withstanding that provocation caused by User:Boodlesthecat? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added QUOTES. How is that, User:Boodlesthecat? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ludvikus, would you like me to ask an uninvolved administrator to give an opinion on your block? Ostap 02:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. If you can really find someone un-involved. As you can see - my problem is only with these 2 editors. Try your best to get someone who is fair. And please keep your eye out on these pages. They are being now Reverted by Bootles who wants to cover up what he did to me. He wants to cover up that it is he who was the most passionate Disruptors. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, the only administrator I have ever actually communicated with here is User:Alex Bakharev. He is indeed very fair, and I will ask him to look over your situation. Ostap 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if he could check things out. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked him to comment on the two years. Ostap 02:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, be aware that contacting User:Alex Bakharev may be seen as Forum shopping. That said, I personally can think of no reason to believe that he wouldn't be fair.

However, you may be better served by going through the "normal channels", and transclude:

Template:Unblock

Though be aware that over-use of the template may lead to this talk page being protected.

Note that I'm watching this talk page. If you should need further assistance, please feel free to ask. (Though please note that I am neutral to your content or topic concerns, and intend to stay neutral to them, and so am disinterested in discussion concerning them.) - jc37 03:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can I contact anyone? I'm blocked. The suggestion was made by an idependent editor - User:Ostap? -- Ludvikus (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean that you are neutral? Isn't that you:

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

How can you be neutral? You made the 1-month move ban Reaffirmation determination. How can you claim to be neutral? You've clearly sided with El_C's determination. That makes you un-neural to my understanding. Please explain how you can think of yourself as "neutral"? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between content and behavior.

As I said, I'm disinterested in the content discussion.

And I'm still neutral. As an observer, your behavior has been less-than-stellar, to say the least. And in reading over even just your talk page posts, you simply aren't doing yourself any favours.

My concern was, and is, that you just do not appear to be responsible when it comes to moving pages.

And please note that regardless of whether you remain blocked, the move ban stands, and may be extended upon further such issues.

As for your block, I have doubts that you'll convince an adminsistrator that it should be lifted, though you may possibly convince someone to reduce it.

Even that won't be likely, however, unless there is a change in how you interact with other editors, and especially unless you stop attacking other editors.

I'll offer the following links which I would strongly advise any editor to read, though I would guess that others have suggested these already:

• WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR; WP:OWN; WP:CON; WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:EQ. (Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines has a pretty good list.)

To summarise, Use references, rather than your own personal thoughts or feelings. Play nice with others, and presume that others are intending to play nice with you, unless you receive tangible evidence to the contrary.

Two other pages that I think might help you in this case would be: Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial and Wikipedia:Controversial articles.

I'd like to hope that this will help... - jc37 04:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Ludvikus should use the unblock template. If he truly violated the "1-month move ban", then he most certainly does deserve a 24 hour block (which I believe he has already served). I think the issue is the two years. That is what needs to be reviewed. Ostap 03:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's felt that he's "served his time", then use of the template is probably approproate. However, I think he and you have illustrated your points and intent without the need for a formal template. So to help you out, I'll add this page to the request for unblocking. The reviewing admin is of course welcome to remove the inclusion upon reviewing the request. - jc37 04:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make it clear that it is technically a block reduction that is requested, not necessarily an unblock. If he has violated a move ban, then a block is of course justified. But like I said, two years is a very long time for violating a move ban. Ostap 04:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just did. : ) - jc37 04:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And since it's now listed, I'll offer my opinion/review (which can be weighed for whatever it may be deemed to be worth). I ask the user in question to please not respond to this, it's only here for reference for whomever reviews this.

I initially questioned User:El_C concerning the length of the block, finally deciding to defer to his experience of the user. (See the discussion here.) And that's still roughly my opinion. However, I do feel that a jump from a 6 month block to 2 years appears a bit steep. That said, there are concerning issues of WP:TE here, as well as civility issues. And it's questionable whether the editor should be trusted to move a page anytime in the near future. (And even page creation is in doubt.) Until finding the mess of moves/deletions (very recently, see my post further up this page), I have not, to my knowledge, ever encountered this user. I welcome the thoughts and review of other admins as well. - jc37 04:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Please stop. I have something to say. I want to say something first. Will you allow me to say what I wish now? --Ludvikus (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email from User:Boodlesthecat to Ludvikus

1. No response to my request. And I'm not responding to the above. I have my own issue which has concerned me in the last few hours:
2. I have announced above, that User:Boodlesthecat, has commenced Email communication with me, and here is the result:
3. He claims that he has discovered my identity (who I am).
4. He further claims that he knows dark secrets about my past.
5. He further claims the "everyone knows who I am - as well as those dark secrets."
6. Are you one of those who, according to him, "knows who I am - and my dark secrets"?
7. Are you qualified to advise me how to handle such a situation?
8. If you are - what do you recommend I do?
9. Furthermore, how would you feel if User:Boodlesthecat sent you emails informing you that he new who you are? And had dark secrets about your past? Would you remain calm and composed? Or perhaps you would find yourself extremely agitated & provoked, no?
10. Before you had concluded that I've "attacked" others, perhaps you might consider rather that it is I who is under attack.
11. Does Wikipedia only desire to have editors who submit to being bullied? Is that it?
12. So, according to User:Boodlesthecat, do you know my identity, or is he a lier?
13. If it is true that you do know my identity - as he implied you do - is the implication here that you will reveal who I am and all the alleged secrets - unless I keep silent and go away for two years?

• • Now - User:Jc37 - who do you really think is under attack under such circumstances - me? Or these poor other editors?
  • I await your self-proclaimed "neutral" advice. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Ostap 05:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have disabled this page's inclusion in [[Category:Requests for unblock]]. Please use the {{unblock}} template instead and write a brief, comprehensible rationale (see User:Sandstein/Unblock.  Sandstein  10:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first unblock review is here. *** Ludvikus, I specifically instructed you not to modify these last section titles, yet you reverted me. El_C 12:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. You're joking, right? These are the Diffs for which I'm to remain Blocked for 2 years?
2. How about addressing my concerns above? According to Boodlesthecat's Email to me - you know my identity.
3. Is that true?
4. Or is he a Disruptive Lier?
5. What's your advice & response to that?

Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those diffs are certainly not the reason for the block, for example because they were made afterwards. I wrote a lengthy treatise above on where you went wrong. Concerning Boodlesthecat's Email, my advice would be to ignore it. If and when Boodlesthecat posts something on Wikipedia, the community can judge it, and somehow I doubt that exposing other editors' "dark secrets" is going to help him. There may be a place to report abuse of Wikipedia's Email feature; I've never looked into that.

On the other hand, if you're concerned about your privacy, you shouldn't have revealed your Email address in the first place. Linking a Wikipedia user account to a real person is rather difficult (on purpose) unless that user actively helps, say, by putting his real name on his user page (and even that information could be wrong, of course). There is a tool called WP:CheckUser that allows to find out a user's IP address, but access to that tool is highly restricted. Huon (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've failed to make my point clear to you. As an example, suppose Boodlesthecat Emailed to you the allegation that I was secretly a "Neo-Nazi." Wouldn't that influence how you work with me here at Wikipedia? According to Boodles (I'm paraphrasing), "Everyone knows that you are a NeoNazi at Wikipedia." If that's the case, I'm no longer effective, and it's a waste of time contributing. I'm not concerned with my privacy. I have nothing that I'm ashamed of. I's my effectiveness at Wikipedia that I'm concerned with. And I think such conduct as I'm describing requires extremely strong action against Boodle. Isn't there a remedy for such a situation? Think of other Wikipedians who can be victimized in such a way? Think of the good of Wikipedia. That's what I'm concerned about as well. Is that not important enough? I've never taken well to bullying, I admit that. But is that what's required of me - always to turn the other cheek? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know what you mean by "reveal." Anyone is more than welcome to reach me by Email. I assume Boodles just followed that standard procedure. Or did he do something unusual? I'm also curious about what you mean by "reveal"? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If Boodlesthecat emailed to me that you were secretly a "Neo-Nazi", I'd find out how to report him for abuse of the e-mail system - he would have violated WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and doing it behind the slander target's back wouldn't make it better in my book.
• As I said, finding out anything about a Wikipedia user account is quite difficult if not impossible. I assumed that you had mailed Boodles too; that would have given him your e-mail address and better chances at finding out something about you. If you haven't done so, I find it extremely unlikely he knows anything about you that you didn't post yourself. Huon (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's informative, and I believe you. Thanxs. It answers some of my questions. Anyway, Boodles started sending me Emails and I responded. He than implied that he sent such email to others. I would like to know what - if any - emails he had sent to El_C. I want to know if El_C's impartiality has been affected by any Emails that he may have received from Boodlesthecat. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks Huon, for this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide (in the above) - I never knew of it's existence until you came along. From you I can see I could learn things - and so you definitely deserve all the WP:Barnstars awarded you. And I can tell that you are an excellent Wikipedian. I can only hope that others could learn from your example. So far there are two Wikipedians I can have a dialogue with on how to make Wikipedia a better place - Ostap is another. Thanks to the both of you. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ludvikus since you are blocked and unable to report anything at the various administrator notice boards, let me know if you want anything posted or anyone to come look over this new development. Ostap 16:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means. Do what you think is best. I have not been "disruptive." I would hope that others who know my work would be brave enough to step to my defense as you have. Thank you very much, Ostap. I am much moved by you support. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have no idea what to do. I could look for the relevant place to post about this, so that I am not blocked for "canvassing". Its funny earlier you were a "seriously disturbed and twisted non-Jewish kid who is obsessed with antisemitism and the Holocaust." Now you are a neo-Nazi?! Ostap 16:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Yes. Be extremely careful. Seek advice. I do not know how "canvasing" applies here. Do not make any hasty moves. Think carefully. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The appropriate place to post would be WP:AN/I. That will bring many more eyes here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon, as you are a high ranking and respected administrator, what do you think of this situation? Ostap 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should call it to the community's attention on WP:AN/I. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I have posted a little message on the AN/I. Hopefully others will come and give their opinions on this. Ostap

1. I would appreciate it if it was pointed out clearly that the current situation I'm in has nothing whatsoever to do with what had occurred at Philosophy about January 2007.
2. My problem appears primarily to be a Content dispute with Administrator User:El_C over On The Jewish Question. He has not yet been able to produce a single WP:Diff showing any Disruption by me; quite the contrary, my conduct has been meticulously restrained under the provocation hurled at me by just 2 editors. I brought that concern to the attention of El_C - but he explicitly refused to help me. And since El_C could not find a single instance of specific disruptive behavior by me he has been reckless in confusing this situation with 2007 by pointing attention to what had occurred in 2007 at philosophy when I took being WP:Bold much too seriously and got in trouble for it. As Jpgordon informed me recently, I need to know how things go on here at Wikipedia. In that regard I have not yet learned completely how to respond effectively to provocation. My version of OTJQ: [10]. El_C's version: [11].
3. My most serious problem is with User:Boodlesthecat. I've made several contacts with him to make peace - but he refused to budge or respond in kind - I have no idea why he is so adamant about getting along with me except that he extremely disapproves of my editing of any article which he edits. Here's my (attempted) discussion with him on his talk page: [12].
4. But perhaps my most serious problem is realy with User:Malik Shabazz who has been WP:Stalking me. There is no explanation for that that I can figure out except that he is someone who had a dispute with me in the past - but I only recognize his name. I suspect this predicament I would not be in had it not been for the WP:Stalking by him. Here's my attemted discussion with him: [13]
5. Had El-C been more communicative with me - and specific - perhaps the situation would have evolved otherwise. But he insisted in expressing himself in metaphors, and authoritarian threats, without directing any direction to specifics. If you look at his "threats" to Block me, you'll find that they are just that. It is unclear what exact rules I'm not following. That is not the case with User:Jpgordon, or User:Huon, who are much more exact in explaining what is required.
6. A good counterexample is that advice above: the gendre of silence. That's not User:El_C - but his admonishments appear of the same order - one is left in limbo in any attempt at comprehending exactly what it is that he wants - and just saying, "don't be disruptive" is not helpful when Wikipedia says be WP:Bold.
7. Unfortunately, at Wikipedia, the Prosecution does not have to prove you guilty, but rather the Defensive must prove itself innocent. I really think things are here quite the same as Franz Kafka's The Trial.
8. So in my defense here is my Diff regarding my successful contributions without any Disruption: [14].
9. On the other hand, in violation of the principle of double jeopardy, User:El_C's only Diff against me consists of a "report" regarding my alleged "Disruption" in January 2007 for which I have already served my "sentence" so to speak: User:FT2/Evidence pages/Philosophy.
10. My learning gets better, but the punishments gets more severe each time: [15].
11. Again - you will not find a single Diff showing I have been disruptive which requires a 2-year Block. It would be nice if User:El_C stepped forward and admitted that there is absolutely no comparison of the current situation to that that existed in 2007 - or at any other time. There's just no grounds for the claim that I've been disruptive.
12. In fact, there has not been disruption caused solely by me for which User:El_C is justified in blocking me for 2 years.
13. It just occurred to me that a good way to avoid Edit Wars is to encourage new editors who arrive at a page as Novices to identify first those other editors who have been particularly dedicated to the page (look at the history) - that way one can uderstand the issues to be addressed and the editors whose dedication must be peacefully confronted. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical revisionism (negationism)

Here's an example, also, of Truth by Majority Rule currently at Wikipedia:

1. "The Future of a Negation: Reflections on the Question of Genocide. (Review) (book review) Kornberg, Jacques [16]
2. "The Future of a Negation: Reflections on the Question of Genocide,
3. "by Alain Finkielkraut, translated by Mary Byrd Kelly. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998) 146 pp. $29.95.
4. "This is a translation of Finkielkraut's analysis of Holocaust denial in France, published in 1982.
5. "Events have by no means outpaced Finkielkraut's brilliant diagnosis.
6. "The "negation" in the title is the English rendition of le negationnisme, the French equivalent for Holocaust denial.
7. "Both terms--le negationnisme and denial--are meant to divest the self-styled claims of its advocates, wolves ...

• This reference (used in the page above) justifies my Requested Move:

Historical revisionism (negationism) → Historical denial

I can only guess that Administrator User:El_C must have considered that to be a Disruptive request. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• More specifically, those who hold the "consensus" and wish me Blocked from Wikipedia are the editors who deny that Negationism is the French equivalent of Holocaust denial, and not, as they say, Historical revisionism. If there is an Agenda here - it certainly is not mine: [17]. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS(1): That's in their own Footnote #2 of Historical revisionism. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS(2): User:El_C - do you think this is conclusive proof for you to Revert back to my Reversion? Will you please let me know if at least you are giving this matter some thought (or that you understand me)? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS(3): Here's who doing what & when, there, to date:

    # (cur) (last)  23:07, 13 May 2008 El C (Talk | contribs) m (54,695 bytes)
            (Reverted edits by Ludvikus (talk) to last version by Paul foord) (undo)
    # (cur) (last) 14:45, 13 May 2008 Ludvikus (Talk | contribs) (54,726 bytes)
            (RVT - the lat step WAS a typo - look at the Whole history) (undo)
    # (cur) (last) 14:19, 13 May 2008 Paul foord (Talk | contribs) (54,695 bytes)
            (rvt - pls note

            is not a typo - Undid revision 212106280 by Ludvikus (talk)) (undo)
    # (cur) (last) 13:42, 13 May 2008 Ludvikus (Talk | contribs) m (54,726 bytes) (typo) (undo)

• Does everyone now understand what's been going on at Historical revisionism (negationism)?
• User:El_C - is this what you think constitutes "Disruption" for which I should be Blocked for 2-years?
• I cannot read your mind - and you've repeatedly refused to be Specific when I asked you to be so. Please reply. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read the arguments I presented to you or if you had read the article then you would have understood that illegitimate revisionism takes place in other areas of history not just Holocaust denial. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just like Theatre of the Absurd. I'm increasingly drawn to the conclusion that the user treats Wikipedia as a game of argumentation (seeing how far he can go), to the exhaustion of everyone else. (And no I received no email communication at the time of or before the block, so I'm not influenced by anything other than his on-wiki conduct, which is exactly the same as the conduct which saw him blocked for six months and two months in 2007.) The contradictions cry out loud. The argument that I have not been communicating with him is false, outright. On the contrary. Take my talk page as an example: Ludvikus posts section after section but never follows up any of them (here's a list of most of em):

1. Ludvikus writes his first (and somewhat aggressive) comment on my talk page, I respond — no followup;
2. Again, no followup;
3. Again, no followup;
4. Again, no followup;
5. Implies bad faith on my part for no apparent reason — I ask what's that about, and again, no followup;
6. Again, no followup;
7. Complains he feels like he has been "Talking to the Wall" (i.e. myself being uncommunicative) —I explain that there has been no followup on his part and that I have replied to everything he has written to me— and again, there's no followup to that, either (!);
8. Again, no followup;
9. Again, no followup;
10. Again, no followup;
11. Again, no followup;
12. Again, no followup;
13. Copy and pastes another user's comment without attribution — again, no followup;
14. Again, no followup;
15. Violates move probation, and again, no followup.

Everywhere else, it has been the same reflective (and reflexive) criticism on his part, directed at everyone else, while talk page after talk page descends into chaos; while article after article suffer low-quality, disjointed additions, and scores of unconventional (often mistyped) moves. It all speaks of careless and contempt to everyone around him. And yet, he still claims he is totally innocent and everyone else is out to get him. I cannot figure out if setting himself up for martyrdom (see also image above) was originally planned, but definitely, in my mind, it looks very unseemly. If anything, the block was warranted a week or two before it was issued. I doubt most admins would have waited nearly as long. El_C 01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre of the Absurd (Part II)

I've rechecked your "script" above and discovered that you answered many of my question on May 1, 2008, on your Home page - but you never let me know you had done that. Therefore, I had no way of knowing that. Remember that you're required to Assume Good Faith. Furthermore, why am I required to "admit a mistake" when the mistake was clearly yours? --Ludvikus (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take some responsibility for your own actions, you've been here since August 2006 and are no longer a newcomer. When you submit tens of queries (often in succession) to someone's talk page, the least you can do is check —between submission of yet another section— to see if the user in question responded in their next edit to the page. You already knew that I respond to comments on my talk page (as you yourself do), because early on I told you I prefer keeping conversations unfragmented, and you already had seen me respond there. El_C 05:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• El_C 1st look at Boodlesthecat's actions as we speek: [18]. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• But now respond to what we're about at Wikipedia - which is to build a great encyclopedia. Do you understand that I'm presenting conclusive scholarly evidence in the above that Negationism = Holocaust denial? Stop being defensive and let's deal with my editing which you must find "disruptive." Don't you think I'm raising an extremely more important issue now than the squabble between you and me? If so, address my question here and now, please - you've reverted my edit - that must have pissed you off. I'm now trying to show that you probably have made a Good Faith error. OK? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unresponsive and divertive as always. Therefore, I have nothing further to add at this time. El_C 02:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Responsive: You have not communicated with me on the issue of the Disruption caused by Boodles & Malik Shabazz. That is a fact. What you own "evidence" above shows is that you were Heavily involved in Content conflicts with me - but where are the Diff's showing any Disruption. You cannot show that because I did not engage in Disruption. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own evidence above shows that, as an admin, I was unable to reach you. Because you never followed up your own communiques. El_C 02:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that really deserve a two year block? Ostap 02:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be possible that I overlooked you answer on your talk page - expecting answers on mine. But also, you seem not to have understood me. But most of all, you refused to help me with Boodles & Malik. Had you done so, I would not have been in this mess. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think? Not only overlooked it +15 times, but argued you were talking to the walls, also overlooking a response to that(!). El_C 02:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Talking to the wall" is conclusive proof that I was unable to reach your mind no matter how much I talked to you. It seems to me that you were much more interested in disciplining me than dealing with Boodles. Why is Boodles allowed to get away with so much with you, but when I use the expression "pissed off" you object? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done here. El_C 02:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you deal with what Wikipedia is all about: Historical revisionism (negationism) → Historical denial. The fact is, you are not dealing in Good Faith with me. You are in a Content dispute with me and you are unfairly using your authority as an Administrator to get your way. Isn't that why you refuse to deal with the Move proposal which you've Reverted? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that "Wikipedia is all about Historical revisionism (negationism) → Historical denial" is your own view, which I (and I suspect nearly everyone else) do not share, or entirely comprehend, for that matter. Again, I was no involved in those move or merge discussions. Yes, I did, after blocking you, reverted your merge request, since you were the only supporting it and seeing as the aforementioned move already failed. El_C 06:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being discussed here. Ostap 02:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Ostap. Could you discuss with me one of my proposed Moves which pissed El_C off? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please tone down your language, this is not a free-for-all. El_C 02:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical revisionism (negationism) → Holocaust denial

OK, what about this: Historical revisionism (negationism) → Holocaust denial --Ludvikus (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? How did that "piss me off"? I wasn't involved at all, though I see that as usual, everyone else opposed your request. El_C 02:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly mistaken. There is no greater "involvement" than a Reversion. And you reverted me! But its interesting that all you care about is how many disagreed with me. Isn't it also important to consider that the majority is wrong - especially on such an important article? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, Ostap, will you please discuss with me the proposed Move? I think I can show everybody that I'm an excellent Wikipedian. But not if I cannot talk to anyone. So will you please give me a chance to show that there is extremely strong evidence for the move I had proposed? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Ostap is not around, will anyone there please listen to my observation that the Move I've proposed is justified by the article's own Footnote 2 [19] [20] which explicitly says that "negationism" is the French for "holocaust denial." Yet the Article is named "Historical revisionism (negationism)." The problem I have is that there's no effective way to get User:El_C to listen. I'm again in the predicament of "talking to the wall" with him. And saying more, he tells me, is too much. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the direct quote: The "negation" in the title is the English rendition of le negationnisme, the French equivalent for Holocaust denial. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, sorry about that. But that really isn't my area of work on wikipedia. However, I still think the block should be shortened. I've tried all I can, I really don't know what else to do? Ostap 03:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's OK, you did a great job. Oh - why don't you tell them how well you communicate with me (if you think so). I'm being depicted as somehow not able to do that. So since you have experience with me, why don't just express how you feel working with me. OK? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had problems communicating with you (and we argued quite a while about the "the" before Ukraine, remember?). I did notice you use that horizontal line in your posts. Slightly annoying :) By the way, you might be interested in User:Alex Bakharev's opinion of working with you here: [21]. Ostap 03:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. I remember now. You taught me that the Ukraine passed a law dropping "the" from its name (it still sounds a bit like a foreignism) but I remember that quite well. But why done you make your observation of me on that Admin. Notice Board? Are you not allowed to do that? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there anyone out there who will discuss with me the proposed Move? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that was not a proposed move, but a proposed merger. Reading the historical revisionism (negationism) article gives us sentences such as: "Examples of historical revisionism (negationism) include: Japan's comfort women, Holocaust denial and Soviet history." Or, if you prefer, take a look at the website you found, here. That website obviously is no reliable source, but I think we can believe it insofar as someone whose interest in "history" has nothing whatsoever to do with the holocaust can still attend conferences by the Institute for Historical Review (an organization that, according to our article, definitely is no legitimate academic institute) as a speaker. So obviously historical revisionism as used by the "(negationism)" article, as an attempt of falsification of history, is a more general phenomenon than just holocaust denial. The article provides even more examples. Those opposing the merger have told you so. If the merge proposal had been successful, what would you have done with those examples? Remove them completely? Still include them in the Holocaust denial article? It seems extremely counterintuitive to merge something on Stalin's distortions of Soviet history into an article called "Holocaust denial". Huon (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I didn't notice that before. First, the situation is very complex, and confused at the moment there. I will not go into that at the moment.

1. What I wish you to consider now is a very narrow issue.
2. Consider only Footnote 2 of the article.
3. If you trace it through, you will find that Negationism is the French equivalent of Holocaust denial.
4. So the article is about "Holocaust denial."
5. So there's WP:Forking.
6. Therefore, the article must be Merged.
7. PS1: Perhaps you are unaware that there is also another article called Historical revisionism?
8. PS2: I did not "find" said article [22]. You must have me confused with someone else. I have not even looked at it until this moment.
9. PS3: Even Footnote 1 has this: " The Future of a Negation is a crucial statement on the Holocaust -- and on Holocaust denial -- from Alain Finkielkraut, one of the most acclaimed and influential intellectuals in contemporary Europe."
10. QED: Historical revisionism (negationism) → Holocaust denial

• Am I understood? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protocols of Zion

• In response to User:El_C's personal attack on my scholarship & my alleged inability to work with others here's proof to the contrary: [23] --Ludvikus (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Contrary to El_C's allegations, what we have currently is a Content dispute between a mere Editor and and Administrator working on the same Articles. That creates a conflict of interests. One solution would be for Administrators not to exercise their powers as such over mere editors with whom they happen to be in disputes with regard to the same articles. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How many times will you to repeat that? How many times will you link (or fail to link) to my userpage? It comes across as attrition. El_C 05:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Here on my talk page - until there is some acknowledgment that (1) I'm understood, (2) and/or there's disagreement on the point at issue. Regarding the link, it's just a nice way of showing whom I'm talking about - or to whom. And it'd not "shouting". Also, it makes it easier for Wikipedians to communicate - everyone becomes merely a click away. It's my own invention & no one else has object. I'm sorry you are pained by all this. However, I ask you to teach me - if you can - what Wikipedia rule I'm violating - or is it merely a matter of your personal distastes? I do wish to be able to accommodate you, but could you please meet me half way? --Ludvikus (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ludvikus, I, personally enjoyed the work with you on a few Russian nationalists bios. I think that work was productive and important. I would rather continue to work with you.

On the other hand you seems to managed to piss off quite a number of editors. I know some of them, they are reasonable people and they are not a member of single cabal I am aware off. They all seem to believe that Wikipdia developemnt would be better of without your contributions.

I am thinking how to make a compromise between those points of view.

One of the ideas is to have some sort of Wikipedia:Mentorship. Somebody would monitor your edits. If the edits do not look helpful he or she would advise you to stop. If you do not stop you will be blocked. If you argue a valid point but argue poorly the mentor would argue your point on your behalf ten you would do something else. If mentor's advises do not prevent disruption he or she would loose his good name but you will be blocked. It is intimidating but probably better than a long block. The success is obviously depends on some trust between you and the mentor as well as between the community and the mentor.

I could volunteer myself as a mentor but if you could find somebody else it will be good, I am already failing my commitments to wikipedia. It maybe more than a single person. It would be better some of them have the block button. I think if we could arrange a mentorship it might be a reason to lift the block.

Another idea would be to work by proxy. If you think of a good edit to make and somebody shares your opinion then he/she could make the actual edit crediting you in the edit summary. Obviously, nobody would do unhelpful or disruptive edits on your behalf. If you think to work that way you can suggest edits on your talk page or by Email and somebody would do it for you Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to unblock, you need to speak to me first. Because I'm not inclined to have Ludvikus unblocked so long as he maintains blame on everyone else and absolute innocence toward himself. So long as there's no progress on that front, I object to an immediate unblock. El_C 06:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El, no I do not want to unblock without consulting you first, I just want to be sure that Ludvicus is interested in the proposal before bothering other people. Ludvikus, there are concerns that I am along would not be able to monitor you close enough, so if you could propose another mentor or if somebody wish to help me with this please propose yourself. The candidates should be approved by both Ludvikus and EL_C Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, if you look through the voluminous history of this case, including above, you will see that a number of editors and admins made extraordinary efforts to advise and monitor and instruct Ludvikus while he rcklessly disrupted numerous articles and talk pages. Ludvikus consistently abused, attacked, vilified and outright lied about each and every one of these editors and admins, and considers anyone who does not agree 100% with his odd views as an enemy. He manipulates any editor he thinks can be used on his behalf, as he now will manipulate you below with hollow promises and praise for your impartiality and fairness, and will play you against admins such as El_C who he will make out as his persecutors. And you will be disappointed. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 12:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Proposal. I Love the idea. I accept it 100%. And I nominate you, User:Alex Bakharev to be my WP:Mentor. (1) I know you. (2) I trust you. (3) I don't know anyone else as well with whom I have also worked on Content. (4) I appreciate very much that you stepped forward when my reputation is so poor. (5) I can guarantee (99.99% - hey, life is uncertain - just joking) that with you as my Mentor there will be no problem. (6) My second choice is User:Jpgordon, but I did not work with him on content, but I've grown to respect his advice even when I do not agree. (7) Thanks for the Mentorship proposal, Jp. (8) Thank you very much to both of you. Much appreciated. (9) And I wish you both a very nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS(1): El_C - I'm not into "Blame." That's not my way. I am ready to make peace with you - immediately. Right now. My purpose here is to write great articles for Wikipedia & to make Wikipedia a better place for everybody. So if you forgive me I certainly forgive you. I do not want to cause you any pain, El_C. Also, I have no problems with any other users but 2 (you know who). If you could "mentor" me on that situation, would be great. But with a Mentor, that may not be necessary any longer. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS(2): Also, El_C, I would appreciate it if you looked at my contributions to Wikipedia I've Archived here [24]. It seems to me that one's reputation at getting along takes priority over actual Content contributions. That is a source of great disappointment to me. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS(3): If you look above, El_C (no link, as per your requst) I'm having a concise - not verbose - conversation with User Huon about the topic you find tedious or atticious with me. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that if we go with mentorship, then Ludvikus should refrain from editing, (including merging or moving) any article that Ludvikus has edited since the 17:24, 6 April 2008 -- which is when Ludvikus started to edit in earnest after his/her last block. This should enable Ludvikus to drink from a well that has not been poisoned because without such an agreement it would be very hard for a mentor to be able to do what a mentor is supposed to do. As there are millions of articles to choose from, this should not be too onerous a restriction. BTW I also agree that El_C should be consulted before the block is removed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think that a Content dispute with you on those articles is grounds for such a restriction. I must command you, however, for your civility. I have no recollection of any uncivil disagreement with you. So I think that we can get along very well.
• Furthermore, since this is my talk page, why don't we discuss the Content dispute which I believe is the reason you desire me not to work on the articles we were both on. I maintain the the two footnotes in the Negationism article actually state that it and Holocaust denial are one and the same. Accordingly, there is WP:Forking. The articles must be merged. Are you opposed to that? If so, why? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• But as an after-thought I find myself provoked by what I see as an insult to me by you. Why not have a much smaller list - why don't you edit any of those millions, and leave me the ones (how many - 3 or 4?) articles which you were in the Content dispute with me on? I apologize to the community - I just cannot resist - yet - such provocation. Perhaps, Jpgordon, you could mentor me on how to handle such condescension as you are an expert on proper Wikipedia Manners. This person is one of those who had/has a Content dispute with me, and I find the suggesion he makes now extremely offensive and provokative. I do not know yet how to handle that - except that I will ignore it on a Talk page of an Article. However, this person is insulting me here now on my talk page. Can I get some "mentoring" on how to handle such a confrontation? Thanx. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you still seem to think you're not at fault for any of this, no, I would not for a moment consider mentoring you; I don't see any indication that you're able to learn from your errors. The first thing you have to do is learn to shut the hell up at the right time. Your blatant refusal to be quiet when User:Jc37 tried to assist you above is basically the last straw, as far as I'm concerned; I find you a tendentious editor and, frankly, an intractable case. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ludvikus when I wrote the above I hurried to save it, as I was being harassed simultaneously by several people in the real world, I had included in the draft suggestion that you "should refrain from editing, (including merging or moving) any article that Ludvikus has edited since the 17:24, 6 April 2008 -- which is when Ludvikus started to edit in earnest after his/her last block -- until such time as the mentors consider it appropriate that Ludvikus can start to edit those articles again ". It got lost in an edit and I did not notice that I had missed it out when I saved it. I do not think it fair on any person who was to act as a mentor for you that you should edit those articles where you have recently been in dispute.

If you had read what I wrote above and simply suggested that "I think an indefinite edit ban on those articles is unreasonable as they are subjects where I have a lot to offer.", I am sure that other editors would have agreed with you -- I would have as it was a mistake that I had missed it out of my original suggestion -- and a compromise could be reached. But as you can see from jpgordon's reaction, you made no friends by replying as you did.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Ludvikus! I've reiterated (on the same Project Talk page) your earlier query on this topic, and you'll see I've left you a note there too. My objective: to get things moving along productive channels. Take a look at my User page for topics of possible mutual interest. For now, just thought you'd like to know you're not alone "here" :-) -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's absolutely wonderful!!!. But are you aware that I am Blocked for 2 years at the moment? I'm certainly interested in what you are doing. I will study that later. But are you aware that I am only able to use this Talk page at the moment? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Queries: How come Holocaust denial is not on your list? Also, what about Negationism? And how about Ghetto benches? And also the following:

1. Jewish question
2. The Jewish Question
3. On the Jewish Question
4. Protocols of Zion

• Do any of these interest you? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• And here's a more extensive list of my interests: [25] --Ludvikus (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the so-called disruption?

It comes - as I've claimed all along - from User:Boodlesthecat. Here is how he describes me - above - to Alex. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ludvikus consistently abused, attacked, vilified and outright lied about each and every one of these editors and admins, and considers anyone who does not agree 100% with his odd views as an enemy. He manipulates any editor he thinks can be used on his behalf, as he now will manipulate you below with hollow promises and praise for your impartiality and fairness, and will play you against admins such as El_C who he will make out as his persecutors."

1. Alex, didn't you say how much you enjoyed working with me? Did I "manipulate" you?
2. I do not understand how such personal attacks - psychological analyses - are permitted at Wikipedia. Is no one going to admonish Bootles for such clear violation of Wikipedia decorum? How is it that he is permitted to get away with such remarks?
3. I repeat. The cause of the so-called disruption is clearly him and not me.
4. I do not understand that the Community fails to see that!
5. How do you expect a minority - a maverick like myself - to have 100% trust, if such disruption is tolerated - while it is I who is admonished?
6. Although I have accepted the idea of mentorship, I think the better option would be to put Boodles in his place.

• Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• PS(1): Will any administrator out there please "mentor" me on how I am to deal with such a remark as Boodles has made above? Please, I truly wish to learn that! What is the appropriate response to that? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• PS(2): I guess the question is now - is there a mentor who could handle such a class between 2 editors like myself and Boodles. Is there such a mentor who could solve this problem? I'm completely at a loss at how to make peace with Boodles. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'"The first thing you have to do is learn to shut the hell up at the right time."

• Unfortunately, that came after the fact. I wish I was advised of that before. Nevertheless - I hope it'd not too late - I'm going to heed it now.
• I'm off to "grind my ax" elsewhere. Exercise another endeavor. And I'm going to "shut the hell up." --Ludvikus (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]