Jump to content

User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Wikiprojects

FYI, I suspect you may be misunderstanding the purpose of Wikiprojects. A wikiproject is a broad topic that contains several articles. It's used when some sort of meta-level scope and stylistic efforts need to be coordinated amongst similar pages. This is why your NWO wikiproject was deleted, and this is why a wikiproject for the Protocols article would generally considered inappropriate. If the work only concerns one or two articles, then the discussion about improving that article belongs on that article's talkpage. For a better understanding of the intent of wikiprojects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject and the various articles to which it links. -Verdatum (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million!!! It's so nice of you to inform me of that. Unfortunately, I'm not excited about learning such things until the need arises. But you are so incredible to have taken the trouble to inform me of my mistake. Others only told me I was a "disruptor" just like before. So much for WP:Assume good faith. I have a very good impression of you for the understanding you're showing me - and for directing me to the right places at Wikipedia where what I need to know exists. I think you make an excellent teacher. If only others could learn from you by your example!!! Now I really have to go on my errands. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

File talk:Protocols & World Revolusion - Contents - vi.jpg

Hello. Please see my message at File talk:Protocols & World Revolusion - Contents - vi.jpg. Also applies to ...-v..jpg Station1 (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Franz von Liszt, February 21, 1915, NYT.pdf. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY (TALK) 22:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Franz von Liszt, February 21, 1915, The New York Times
Left you a message. It's in the Public domain - punished 1915 in the USA. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Afraid that's not quite right, to quote WP:PD, "If a work is a "work made for hire", it has corporate authorship and is protected to the shorter of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation." It's still under copyright until at least next February. -Verdatum (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
A work published in the U.S. before 1923 is in the public domain. Period. No question about it. No ifs, ands, or buts. The provision you cite regarding corporate works applies to works created after 1977. see [1] - Nunh-huh 04:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, my friend, Veritas Verdatum, here's the truth Verbatim: In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world - is in the Public domain. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I stand happily corrected. -Verdatum (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:The Mass Extermination of Jews in German Occupied Poland

Thanks - Dziękuję! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"Prosche bardzo!" --Ludvikus (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ludvikus. Sure, I'd be happy to help you, but I'm not sure what you'd like help with. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you the tags on the image? Thanks. It's a 1915 NYTimes image. So it should be in the Public domain. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus, confrontation, etc.

OK, let's try again to establish a "consensu" on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Let's start with WP:CONSENSUS and at WP:BRD, My comments will be preceeded by the word "Comment"

  1. WP:BRD (bold, revert, discuss) says
    1. (in WP:BRD#What BRD is, and is not)
      1. BRD is most useful for pages where seeking consensus would be difficult, perhaps because it is not clear which other editors are watching or sufficiently interested in the page, though there are other suitable methods.
      2. BRD is best used by experienced wiki-editors. It requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. You can also try using it in less volatile situations, but take care when doing so.
    2. (in WP:BRD#Cases for use)
      1. BRD will generally fail if:
        • There is a (large) preexisting consensus in the general community against the specific change you'd like to make
        Comment: This is true in most of your conspiracy theory edits.
  2. WP:What is consensus?
    Comment Section headings are all relevant; please tell me what you think they mean.
    1. Not a majority vote
    2. Not unanimity
    3. Not all or nothing
    4. Not permanent
    5. Not the king of Wikipedia
    6. Not a walled garden
    7. Not a contest
    8. Not hypothetical
    You seem to be saying that there is consensus for your actions unless if more editors have disagreed than agreed. This is inconsistent with at least points 1 and 4 above. Unless you are an established, trusted, editor, it probably would be best to assume, once your edit is reverted, that there is consensus for your changes only if more editors agree than disagree, not counting yourself as an editor — even if you're going to just count editors.

More specifics: it might be useful to understand what you mean by "consensus" and by your promise not to be "confrontational" (which I can no longer find in your talk page archives). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to User: Arthur Rubin regarding the above here summarized:

  1. "Comment: This is true in most[weasel words] of your conspiracy theory edits."
  2. "Comment Section headings are all relevant; please tell me what you think they mean."
  3. "More specifics: it might be useful to understand what you mean by "consensus" and by your promise not to be "confrontational" (which I can no longer find in your talk page archives)."
  1. Answer 1: I cannot possibly respond to this Weasel-worded WP:Personal attack on me. You cannot produce a single DIFF because I've been extremely cautious in my editing. It's clear to me that EVERY TIME you disagree with an edit of mine you bring up my Past. I've learned a lot from my past. That lesson is that I should NEVER be provoked into Disrupting a Content article or a Talk page no matter how difficult it may be to keep one's cool.
  2. Answer 2: "Confrontational is exactly what you are doing to me all the time all over the articles we meet each other. Disagreeing with you doing that to me is not Confrontational. I have completely lost my belief in your WP:Good faith because of what you've been putting me through. So I believe you will give me an F. no matter how I answer. Accordingly, I strongly recommend that you, who say you are "experienced" teach me by supplying the answers to your quiz yourself.
  3. Answer 3: The appropriate reply here is a non-sequitur: I've learned from my Past to be extremely careful not to violate any rule or policy of Wikipedia - even unintentionally. Wikipedia is a very difficult environment. Not only are its rules of behavior very difficult, but people of all walks of life are allowed to participate. In your case, I have to withstand you condescension even though I've been a professional educator all my working life - and you do not know if I'm 93 years old or not.
  • Therefore, since you profess to be an expert on WP:Consensus as well as WP:Confrontation (a not-existent rule at Wikipedia, it's only common sense), I would be very pleased to learn from you what the answers are to three Questions you've asked. I look forward to hearing from you so that I might become a better Wikipedian. Thanks.
-Ludvikus (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, as you have not made a substantive comment, I must decline to attempt to explain myself to you further. In the event that someone else is reading this:
  1. Answer 1. I cannot recall an example of your edits in the conspiracy theory articles which is not contrary to consensus, or showing a lack of understanding of the English language. There might be one. I was being generous in saying "most". I shouldn't have said it, but you still need to explain what you mean by consenus, as there is no possible way that your actions can be seen as not being against consensus.
  2. Answer 2. You agreed to not be confrontational as a condition of your unblock. If you cannot explain what you meant by it, I see no reason why you should not be immediately reblocked for the duration, or until you can explain.
  3. Amswer 3. See answer 1. In quite a few articles, you have continued to add the same material until two editors removed it.
I had hoped that you would reply in good faith. I see my hopes were mistaken. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to 1: I'm not responsible for your memory, you are. Consensus means, with my predicament, avoiding every direct edit of yours. It means, in your case, that I do not even Revert Once. And when you Revert me, it means I never Revert you. That's how consensus applies now since you are clearly intent on finding an excuse to get me Blocked.
Reply to 2: Not being Confrontational means, in this context, letting you win. Recognizing that there's no way, in heaven's name, that I could possibly win with you as my judge at Wikipedia. Therefore, any edit which you make I must simply let stay on a Content page - otherwise you will consider my edit Confrontational. That is 100% clear to me now that that's what you wish me to acknowledge that Consensus means in this context. If I'm wrong, you are free to set me straight.
Reply to 3: That's a 100% untruth which is being fabricated as an excuse to get me Blocked. There was that editor you think was me, 212. ... and your confusing me with him, or that I acted in concert with myself. You've been here since 2005. I've been here since 2006. So you are completely wrong about characterizing my work here. That's why you are unable to produce even a Single Diff showing any wrong doing on my part. You're only interest is in getting me Blocked. My promise not to be Confrontational did not mean I would allow someone to Bully me on my own Talk page. Our discussion here is not Confrontational from my standpoint at all. What I'm showing here is your deliberate, and constant Disruptive provocations in order to get me Blocked simply because you wish to promote your ow Point-of-View regarding conspiracy theory, and it's related articles. Now explain what exactly it is that you want from me in order to make me a better Wikipedian. Begin by explaining to me what it is that you mean by Consensus. Is it not simply accepting each and every edit of yours?'
--Ludvikus (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
PS1: For example, I could Revert this Reversion of yours of another editor (212...) [2]. But I won't, because I know that you'll probably consider it Confrontational. So will you now award me a Barnstar for knowing when a Reversion will get me Blocked, even thought it's the right thing to do according to Wikipedia? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
PS2: And now you accuse me of "Vandalism" here: [3]. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

PS3: Apparently you yourself are engaged in Disruption, yet you insist that I lean from you: [4]! --Ludvikus (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You and I are one and the same!

How do you like that? (Or shall we tell people that we're identical twins?) --Ludvikus (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Things are getting a bit better since your arrival - I'm looking at the mirror and seeing myself. You know, if you and me are one, then they can't accuse us of a "conspiracy." So we better not tell them we're two. (Ha, ha!) --Ludvikus (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't what you are talking about but I hope you realize that the more you harass me the more it motivates me to get you banned from Wikipedia... --Loremaster (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Your Cut & Paste here is misleading. That remark was addressed to Special User 212. User:Arthur Rubin accused me of being WP:Sockpuppetry. So I was being light hearted about it. I have no idea how you feel the way you do except that I withstand you constant Personal Attacks on me. What I would like to know is why you invited Arthur Rubin, an administrator. You know that that's not allowed.
  2. Please tell me specifically what I can do to make you feel better at Wikipedia. You are to general for me to know what you want. Please be explicit. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The remark you object to was for the benefit of Special user Special User 212.200.205.163. I'm sorry you think otherwise. I'm supposed to be him/her according to Arthur Rubin. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that Arthur Rubin has accused you of sock puppetry. Certainly not of this 212 IP. Perhaps you should relax a bit. -Verdatum (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
He's claimed that I'm the same person as that 212... Special user. But why are you telling me to relax? Did you not read this whole page? Maybe you should tell both Arthur Rubin & Loremaster to get off my back? What do they want from me? If you can calm things down, great. But you're telling the wrong person to Relax. Look above! Any advice you can give is of course extremely welcome. But I find it strange, odd, that you are telling me to relax. Read this page carefully, and tell who needs to be told to relax. You, Verdatum, have been always very civil with me - so I give what you say great weight. Have a nice day or night wherever you hail from. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you're not 212.... However, that doesn't excuse your clear violation of your agreement which allowed your unblock. As I said earlier, may I suggest that you restrict yourself to 0RR*; never revert a reversion of one of your edits, regardless of accuracy or provocation. That might be a start. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Stop accusing me of what never happened: "clear violation of your agreement which allowed your unblock." There wasn't any such think. You have no right to attacking me personally now. Someone who reads what you said may believe it. But you know that it's not true. If you could find ANY violation by me you would have blocked me a long time ago. Your obviously Provoking and Attacking me so you could get me Blocked. I ask you again! Produce just ONE DIFF which shows a violation. You won't because there isn't any. That's why you put in my name next to the Vandalism diff. I didn't Vandalize anything - and you know it. So STOP leaving such comments about me. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk: NWO (conspiracy theory)

My arguments with Loremaster were extensive, sure you're looking at the right page? It started at this section- [[5]] and goes through to section NPOV on council on foreign relations, includes several sections I created including Editor assuming ownership of an article and georgia guidestones. I noticed your conflicts with loremaster last week and was lurking, happy to see anyone bring ANY other POV besides his. Notice he went right to a personal attack to discredit my input on the article. I won't be hypocrite and return what I'd like to say about him.Batvette (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's right - do NOT allow yourself to be provoked, no matter how difficult it is to keep your cool. Remember that Wikipedia prohibits WP:Personal attacks. And provocation is no defense - learned that a long time ago. But let's get to the issue at hand. You recommended a "See also" section. User:Loremaster directed me Archive 3 of the Article above. But I only found there what he said about you - there is nothing that you said there. So did you participate in the above article at all? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


File copyright problem with File:Praemonitus Praemunitus - Contents - vi. (1920).jpg

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Praemonitus Praemunitus - Contents - vi. (1920).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a serious of bizarre extensions during the time when the US was deciding whether to comply with Berne. It's not completely absurd. However, the solution is to add the appropriate {{pd}} tag to the image, probably {{PD-US}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Arthur Rubin, for your constructive advice. I'll look into it further when I have a chance. I wish you a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I got it now: {{PD-US}}:
--Ludvikus (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
OK! Thanks for the "[": Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

protocols

Hi, take a look at this: [6] Zerotalk 12:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the 1st ed. of "The Jewish Peril." I wouldn't pay some character on eBay $975" for it - would you? I have a photocopy of it from a scholarly library. That's good enough for me Maybe, at 10 cents per page and 96 pages (I pay be mistaken on the page count) I only paid for it $9.75 - and that was too much. This is the imprint which George Shanks produced by translating the text from the Russian. I don't know if he used the Nilus 1905 version at the British Museum. But we do know that he worked for Morning Post. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Britons publishing

I don't think it is necessary to put dispute template onto the talk pages of these articles. There appears to have been no content disputes or discussion on the talk page. I added the UK far right category to these pages, but only because the pages are already listed on the UK far right template. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

New World Order (conspiracy theory)

I reverted an edit there by an anon IP. Take a look at the history and let me know if I made a mistake please? The anon seems to believe you are disruptive.. Cheers!! - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Loremaster has Reverted your edit. I Reverted back. So I hope you join the discussion. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you made a mistake. The anon is User:Loremaster; as is noted by anyone who actually reads the NWO talk page, he admits having trouble remaining logged in. And he's not the only one who thinks Ludvikus is disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin, I think you got it wrong. Loremaster Reverted the edit of User:4twenty42o. So it's a dispute between them. And I side with User:4twenty42o. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. All three of you are fine editors that unfortunately cannot see eye to eye. I am going to do a little more research and see if I can come up with something that would be helpful to all. Sincerely Ludvikus I am sorry you have to continue facing personal attacks from these users. I don't know how you manage to maintain your level head in all of this. I would be pretty upset if I were you. I am heading to the library right now, but I will catch up with you on the article talk. - 4twenty42o (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

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 thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Ludvikus (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. 22:02, 7 July 2008 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) blocked Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 42 hours ‎ (Wikipedia:Administrator _noticeboard/Incidents#Review_of_a_block)
  2. 22:00, 7 July 2008 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) unblocked "Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs)" ‎ (reset)
  3. 18:15, 7 July 2008 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) blocked Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring: extended owing to past blocks of this admin for the same thing)
  4. 18:15, 7 July 2008 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) unblocked "Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs)" ‎ (reset)
  5. 16:53, 7 July 2008 Scarian (talk | contribs) blocked Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Edit warring)
  6. 20:37, 24 May 2008 Scarian (talk | contribs) blocked Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: On the Alex Jones (radio) article.)
  7. 19:51, 15 March 2008 MaxSem (talk | contribs) unblocked "Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs)" ‎ (to participate in ANI discussion, was blocked too hastily)
  8. 19:12, 15 March 2008 Coren (talk | contribs) blocked Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Apparent abuse of admin tools in dispute; bringing to AN/I for review)
  9. 04:27, 4 March 2008 BorgHunter (talk | contribs) blocked Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Kent Hovind)
  10. 23:28, 9 February 2008 Nakon (talk | contribs) blocked Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 days ‎ (Edit warring: same article as previous block.)
  11. 20:36, 12 January 2008 Madman (talk | contribs) blocked Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Edit warring)

ANI notice

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 an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I responded to the ANI as well as left a comment on the talk. I am offering to act as a mediator and to assist in verification of claims. I would also be willing to check ref's and help with general clean up on the article. I truly hope that you do not have to suffer the indignity of verbal abuse in this or any matter. If I can be of any assistance to you or any of the others please let me know. - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
No worries brother you seem like a hell of a nice, if misunderstood person. Stay in touch and don't hesitate to ask for assistance. - 4twenty42o (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC).

AN/I thread

It is often hard to find out who to talk with to gain consensus. By making a bold edit you attract the attention of people who are genuinely interested in a page, and have it on their watchlist. You can then discuss your issues with them. Compare Wikipedia:Consensus.

Thank you for your alert to me. The only interaction we have had was, I think, an episode in which I advised you of the procedure for appealing against an article deletion, which was about 18 months ago. In the current dispute in which you are involved, which I have just scanned - I admit, only briefly - I get the impression that we have several editors, all of whom are seriously well-intentioned, but who have different agenda and possibly different interpretations of fact. I do not feel that an input from me is appropriate; I have not been involved in editing anywhere around the dispute. Is conversation between the disputing editors not possible? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish it was possible. If it's not, I assure you that it's not through a fault of my own. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think that everyone who has been involved with you in the past should have been notified, per WP:CANVASS, but I can understand your confusion in regard the {{ani-notice}} hat-note in the heading of WP:ANI. I'm not going to bring this up in the ANI thread, although others might. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Arthur. Why don't we try working things out - for the good of Wikipedia? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
See my latest comment in the ANI thread. I think you have the good of Wikipedia in mind, but you don't understand the policies and guidelines. I apparently can't explain them to you. If someone else can, and you can then follow them, that would be the preferred outcome. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Loremaster has apologized to me for the Personal Attacks I was subjected to. You seem to say it didn't happen. That I don't know what it means. Is that the case? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly. He made personal attacks after you incorrectly claimed that his true statements about your edits were personal attacks. Still, being attacked is no excuse for counter-attacking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. He Personally attacked me.
  2. I never violated ANY rule of WP, and I did not "counter-attack." The only problem now is you. You did NOTHING then to stop his misconduct. And now you're practicing WP:Bad faith by trying to blame me for your failure to act as an Administrator by STOPPING Loremaster's Personal Attacks - you're doing this especially because it looks like you're not going to succeed in your totally (100%) unjustified posting of the ANI against me to get me Blocked. STOP it already. Get off my back. Leave me alone. You are not interested in making peace. That's clear to me now. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for alerting me, too. Wikipedians don't like wikilawyering but the ANI thread is so long and difficult to read. Too bad the accusations couldn't be clearer, such as "Ludvikus is accused of violating 1) policy WP:ASDFASDF, 2) guideline WP:ASDFASDFA, and 3) policy WP:1234. Accusation 1) is because he did ......" Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It's simple enough. From my point of view, Ludvikus is violating his agreement from the previous AN/I thread and (although it's difficult to find) the agreement which led to his unblock. That would seem adequate to at least reinstate the block until those matters, and possibly others that led to the orginal block, are resolved. But I would prefer that he understand his violations (which are clear to everyone else who has commented, except Ludvikus and Batvette), and agree not to repeat them.
  • Other problems include
  • Misunderstanding of WP:CONSENSUS (he defines it as a majority commenting, both ignoring actions, and ignoring whether the arguments are based on Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or even essays)
  • His repeated statement that he may continue to make his preferred change until there is a WP:CONSENSUS against it. WP:BRD suggests that once a change is reverted, it shouldn't be reinserted until there is a consensus in favor of it, established by discussion.
  • Clear violations of WP:NFCC for image selection. (This, although not, as some have stated, a violation of rules set by WikiMedia legal, it is a policy.)
  • And it's not necessary for someone to violate a rule to be banned. A mere inability to make constructive edits has been ruled adequate for an indefinate block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Arthur Rubin, your conduct towards me throughout my encounters with you at Wikipedia makes it impossible for me to WP:Assume good faith. But I'll respond as if Good faith exists between us, even though I believe it does not from your side of our dispute. I'll think carefully about your remarks above, and respond accordingly, below. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. I did NOT make a Contract (agreement) with Wikipedia when I returned. What I did was indicate to the un-Blocking editor that I had learned my lesson. And I did learn my lesson - that's why you are un-able to get me Blocked now. I promised not to "Confront" another editor. And you're a prime example of the fact that I kept - and am keeping - my promise. You see, in the Old days, I would have "attacked in kind." But no matter how much your side-kick, editor [[User:Loremaster],] insulted and humiliated me, I kept my cool and level head. In other words, I was being Confronted and Disrupted by the both of you, but I took on a purely Defensive stance. That's why it's impossible for you to get me Blocked, no matter how hard you try. Because, as it turns out, User:Jimbo Wales faith in the Community can and does pay off. All the other editors, besides you, and your side-kick, know what a nice and wonderful editor I am - even if I'm not perfect, and so they are defending me against the incompetent attack by an unfit administrator like yourself who has no reason whatsoever to get me Blocked yet persists in doing everything possible to provoke me to write something which you, or your side-kick, User:Loremaster, could be used by either of them to get me Blocked. Do you understand? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  2. You obviously do not understand the meaning of WP:Consensus. That's why you have a history of being Blocked (look above where I've researched your record in order to find out if you are the right and competent teacher to teach me how Wikipedia works. As you can see in the above summary of your record of being Blocked, you deserve nothing but an "F" regarding your ability to teach me the meaning of "Consensus." Your doublespeak is useless in teaching anyone anything about Consensus because from a contradiction Everything follows. But even if you ignore all of the above there's still this Fact: I've imposed a 1RR rule upon myself regarding the Content page. In other words, I only Reverted Once. So for that you could not possibly find fault with me. But also, this Criticism of yours is purely Academic - you cannot produce a Single DIFF indicating that I acted against the Consensus. Even if you count Loremaster twice (who used a secret account until he was discovered) you still cannot prove that I violated the Consensus. That's why you're only able to Talk here about my hypothetical lack of understanding of Consensus. Do you understand? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  3. And since you know I didn't violate WP rules, you make-up new violations as you go along: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. This, at best, indicates that you just want me to obey you. There never was a case in which I put up an image that violated a copyright rule - and you know it. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Nope. I don't know you haven't violated WP rules even since your return; I can't name a specific rule other than WP:CONSENSUS that you have violated, but you've edited in a number of articles which I don't watch. I do know you've violated WP guidelines (WP:BRD, for example) and your agreement in the previous ANI thread. I do know you edited against against a clear WP:CONSENSUS, which suggests that you don't understand the concept. I'll let others decide which of us has better arguments at this time; whether or not your block record is better than mine. You have claim my referring to your block record and the reasons for it is a personal attack; if that were correct, your referring to my block record and misrepresenting the reasons for those blocks would be more so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This is my Talk page. The purpose of my reviving your Block record is to demonstrate - to myself - that there is no reason for me to give a heavy weight to the idea that you're an expert from whom I can learn Wikipedia rules and policy. This is not an ANI page. This is a page for us to reach an understanding for the good of Wikipedia. If you could teach me something about WP rules or policy - I can assure you I would be extremely happy to award you a WP Barnstar. But all your generalities so far have taught me Zero, "Nada." But I'm here, ready to give you another chance. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Cut & Paste [1] ANI: [7]

Comment. Ludvikus :

  • a) is polite (unlike two other editors mostly attacking him here, and quite often treating others with WP:PA's),
  • b) is persistent about his views (which is good, as without stubbornness of editors on wikipedia, it would have much less quality articles, which in my opinion arise from intense discussions between editors),
  • c) actually discusses his reasonings on talk page (almost?) ALWAYS, unlike other two editors who have a habit of often simply reverting other's edits without providing them with any reasonable justification.
now, i can understand that some people are bothered with Ludvikus' sometimes confusing argumentation. he also confuses me sometimes. but is that a reason for me to tell him he should be blocked, or be silent, or not participate in wikipedia? that is simply ridiculous. it is against principles that wikipedia is fundamentally based on. if you are confused, you are not obliged to respond, or as Loremaster pointed out above, have your mood ruined in interaction with him. you can go of-line for a change and do other things. or imagine this option, an amazing and ingenious new idea that might not have occured to complaining editors: you can spend some time editing other articles, and leave the confusing Ludvikus' comments to some other editor to deal with. what a novel idea! (well, of course, article "owners" won't like this novel idea) 212.200.205.163 (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Cut & Paste [2] ANI: [8]

It seems the going off-line idea occured to many other editors in contact with Ludvikus, and if you look above, that has left some articles with too few editors. But anyway, Loremaster could leave the article to Ludvikus and Batvette for a period of time. Then the community could see if there is any improvement or not. 134.106.41.27 (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

pasting others comments

hi ludvikus.

i just want to let you know that if you are pasting here selected comments from ANI and including peoples signatures, you should also place some kind of NOTE on the top of the section saying these are comments you moved here. cheers. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrative notice board/Incidents

  • Please select the closest request from the following categories.
  • You will be taken to the appropriate noticeboard:
  1. Biographical article issues ("BLP")
  2. 3RR or edit warring
  3. Ongoing vandalism
  4. Page protection
  5. Civility problems
  6. Sock-puppetry
  7. Arbcom ruling enforcement
  8. Content issues
  • For all other requests, start a new thread at this noticeboard.
  • Please provide links to involved pages and editors, and notify editors under discussion.
Copied & Pasted --Ludvikus (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Historical revisionism Cut & Paste: ANI: [9]

Extended content

Historical revisionism: User:North Shoreman & User:Philip Baird Shearer v. User:Ludvikus

Resolved
Given this post by Ludvikus, this ANI is closed. --PBS (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Good morning from Manhattan.

  1. I'm in a Content dispute with the above two (2) editors.
  2. Both - to the best of my recollection - were heavy contributors to historical revisionism and/or to historical revisionism (disambiguation) related articles.
  3. A {{stub}} called "Revisionist historians (American)" was being developed jointly by myself and User:North Shoreman.
  4. Suddenly User:Philip Baird Shearer appeared and Restricted me from editing an unspecified set of nine (9) articles related to the above topic.
  5. User:Philip Baird Shearer maintains that I violated the "POV Forking" policy of Wikipedia.
  6. I did no such thing. However, I see now how User:Philip Baird Shearer came to the conclusion that I did.
  7. I understand very well a most important policy of Wikipedia - to edit by consensus.
  8. I also fully understand the anti-point-of-view-forcking policy.
  9. I certainly will look to be much more cautious in the future so that my creation of {{stubs}} cannot possibly be misconstrued as "Forking" instances.
  10. I sincerely apologize to these two editors for any distress I have caused them. That was never my intent.
  11. However, in my opinion, Wikipedia reputation requires that the nine (9) articles related to historical revisionism be substantially improved to conform to WP:Original research and WP:Neologism policies.
  12. There's absolutely no reason to Restrict me from editing these articles. I understand now that controversial articles must be so Flagged and edited with extreme caution.
  13. Since I understand all these things now very well, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy to Restrict me from articles where, in fact, I may attain a consensus favoring my views.
  14. At the moment, I understand that regarding Content, I have no Consensus it's one (me) against two (the two above named editors).
  15. Therefore, I ask that nine ((9) Restrictions are lifted as totally un-necessary.
Thank you for attending to this matter. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Enough, just over a week ago (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Ludvikus September 2009 I asked for a review of a decision I had made. Not one of the people who took part in that conversation agreed with your position that I had acted unreasonably. I strongly suggest that you drop this ANI request. -- PBS (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus was unblocked on Sept 21 with request stating "... I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor...." Well, this is already, I believe, the third ANI thread in two weeks. Looie496 (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Question? WP "ANI" is a wonderful place to resolve disputes. This is NOT a confrontation. Asking Help at ANY is a "Confrontation"? If it is, I'll drop it immediately, and apologize. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, PBS. I'm not saying that you "acted unreasonably." Quite the contrary. I understand now fully why you believed I had created a "POV Fork." I know now that I must be extremely careful not to do that because "historical revisionism" is controversial. I'm am not at all "Confronting" you. Or judging your conduct. I'm only saying that the Restrictions you are holding against me are 100% un-necessary. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I certainly did not deliberately create a Fork. But I can see now how you would think that I have. So I sincerely apologize to you for all the distress I must cause you.
  • I think we do have a Content disagreement. But I don't think that should cause any problems - because I understand now how to be extremely careful with "historical revisionism" related articles. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Again, PBS, I really understand now how badly my editing involving these articles must look to you. But I promise you that I will go very slowly. Check to make sure nothing in this area looks like a POV Fork. I also fully understand the need for Consensus. So there's no need to Restrict me from these nine (9) articles. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There was very little activity in this area. And I though I was just WP:Bold. But now I know that I need to slow down - to give other editors, like yourself, a chance to respond. After all, one might be away from one's PC for a couple of days - and then be shocked at what happened to an article. I fully understand that now. I think I went to fast. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • PBS This is all about me - that I know how to be an excellent editor in this area. I'm not Confronting you. I'm only asking you to give me a chance to prove myself to you. Please do that for me. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Look. I'm really an excellent Content editor (my "stub" blossom into "flowers": [[10]] [11] --Ludvikus (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep restrictions until May 2010. WP "ANI" is not "a wonderful place to resolve disputes". It is bullying and it is frightening. I know - I was on the receiving end of one on 1-3 October. During the process, I found myself being accused of racism. The person who made the accusation afterwards realised that he was mistaken and apologised.

When people who have been repeatedly banned are allowed back to Wikipedia, it seems sensible to have them under probation. If the ban was for two years, then that probationary period should be a lot longer than 2 weeks.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. But Toddy1, you and I resolved our difference just today: [12]. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • And we've worked so well together (100%) in the last two days on world domination, Talk:World domination, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, & [13]. So our record shows that I'm an excellent editor by you, in spite of your vote against me. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not on "probation," User:Toddy1. I'm only Restricted from Nine (9) articles. The community recognizes me as an excellent Content editor. I avoid the two (2) articles which caused me WP problems in the past: "Philosophy" and "On the Jewish Question." It's the last which resulted in my Ban. But I'm a far better editor now in understanding Wiki rules. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The purpose of the Restrictions is to avoid "disruption." It's not to "punish" an editor. And since I understand that I should be extremely careful with historical revisionism related articles - because they are controversial, there's no need to Restrict me from them. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • You apparently do not understand that I have not made ANY criticisms of the above two named editors. I'm only naming them because it is with them that I have a Content disagreement. You also do not understand, apparently, that it is I who am being subjected to an evaluation, not the two people above. I'm not saying a single critical word about them as Wikipedians in relation to their performance by WP rules. Having a Content disagreement is 100% OK. One just should not let that degenerate into violating WP rules. So I suggest you reconsider what you say here about me. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


<--Where have I written what you created was a POV fork? This seems like the mistake you made in not reading carefully the restrictions that I placed on you and which I had to repeatedly point out to you were not as you had read them.

I said you had created a content fork on a redirect page which the consensus before you were blocked was not not to do so Talk:Historical revisionism/Archive 3#Revisionist historians vs. Historical revisionism. Anyone who reads the reasons for your two year block, in the archives of your talk pages, and the talk archives of the historical revisionism, related articles, and other pages, will see just how disruptive your behaviour was. For example as soon as it was clear that you did not have agreement to create "Revisionist historians", -- the last posting the talk page on that subject (in the section liked above) was at "15:46, 13 May 2008" -- you then posted a "requested move" to move "Historical revisionism" → "Revisionist historians" at "18:03, 13 May 2008" only two hours latter! It was you inability to work constructively with other editors which earned you a two year ban.

You were unblocked at 08:06 on 21 September 2009. Less than a day later you posted a comment to the talk page of "Historical revisionism" at 03:19 22 September, waiting for less than ten minutes for a reply, at 03:27 on 22 September you altered "revisionist historians" from a redirect to a stub.[14]. Despite User:North Shoreman objecting to your edits you pressed on regardless (see Talk:Historical revisionism and history Revisionist historians] which drove a coach and horses through you promise before the unblock that "... I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor...."

As a 16 month ban had apparently taught you nothing, I had hoped that 8 months restricting you from an area where you cause so much disruption (for example creating articles like Historical revisionism (negationism) (disambiguation) on 11:59, 5 May 2008) will allow you time to develop you collegiate skills, but this ANI makes me wonder if that is possible. --PBS (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. PBS. Please be fair to me. This is about the need to Restrict me now. I've edited hundreds of articles at Wikipedia. But I was Banned for Two years because of editing at On the Jewish Question. The Administrator who Banned me gave the Reason as "disruption." That's over. I learned my lesson. There's no point to go over what I did wrong in 2008.
  2. A generous editor - not you - but I do not mean to say you're not - lifted my ban before the two years were up.
  3. Thereafter, after quite a few edits by me, you Restricted me for a Fork violation. You did not claim that I'm disruptive.
  4. The issue now is whether I have learned my lesson. If I have - then there's no need for a Restriction.
  5. If we look again - we will find that "POV" is why I'm restricted. If you wish, I'll gather the Diff's for that.
  6. But the issue is narrow - what reason is there for Restricting me from the historical revisionism set of 9 articles if I assure that I will do my best not to violate any rules which would give you cause to find fault with me? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • PS1: Here's the "POV" & "NPOV" reason you had given me for the nine (9) Restrictions regarding historical revisionism: [15],[16]. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • PS2: There's no need to go into my past. You're complaint involves my alleged WP "fork". What ever different kinds of Forks there are at Wikipedia, I understand the most important thing about them - do not write a SECOND article because you wish to get around the FIRST article which you do not like - and the MAJORITY is against you. And I know that if I do that with historical revisionism I'll be in big trouble with you. So there's no need to Restrict me. Again, I know I must be very, very careful with these pages. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • PS3: I was NOT explicitly Blocked because Historical revisionism. I was Blocked by User:El_C for On the Jewish Question. So I had no reason to be extremely careful regarding historical revisionism. And besides, look at what I did: (1) I abbreviated an expression by substituting "pejorative" and (2) flagged the section with a POV tag. And also made comments on the Talk pages. That's what you cite as my violation. But the point is - I know now that I must be extremely cautious because you could even Block me for a violation. So, again, there no need to Restrict me.
--Ludvikus (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • PS4: The fact is that there were, and still are, only three of us on these pages - and I'm the minority. So there's no consensus in my favor unless just ONE of you TWO agrees with me. I would have to be an idiot not to know that I must this simple fact. And I hope you don't doubt that I'm no idiot. So just give me a chance to be able to work with both of you, with my full understanding of what constitutes a consesus. Hey, if I cannot convince the both of you - you win. That's an easy rule to follow. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

<-- You are still not listening to other editors Toddy1 writes here "... . WP "ANI" is not "a wonderful place to resolve disputes". It is bullying and it is frightening. ", but you carry on as if user:Toddy1 had not made such a comment to your comments, and I think Toddy1 is making a valid point. Have you read anything that I have written, because you write that "There's absolutely no reason to Restrict me from editing these articles. I understand now that controversial articles must be so Flagged and edited with extreme caution.", yet before you were unblocked you said ""... I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor....", and despite that assurance you ignored User:North Shoreman, so what makes your new assurance worth anything? I do not see from the tone of your postings, that since your unblocking that you have learnt anything. I hope over the next few months that you will. "you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?" (Full Metal Jacket). -- PBS (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, let me repeat what I wrote last week: "Given his history of disruptive editing, a temporary restriction is inappropriate. Within a week or two he will muck up some other area of Wikipedia, and soon thereafter he will be accusing every administrator in sight of having a personal conflict with him. Save us all some time and restore his block." It is a rare leopard that can change its spots. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy of warning left on user talk:Ludvikus

I do not think we have any significant previous interaction, I believe I am completely uninvolved here. What I see is that you were blocked for a long time due to your excessively combative style, and you were unblocked following an undertaking not to be combative. You are now giving every impression of hounding those with whom you disagree, and seeking to escalate content disputes where you are clearly in a minority. Your protestations that this is not disruptive are not persuasive to me. I am therefore giving you a final warning: reduce your drama to content ratio, accept consensus even when you disagree with it, or the block will be reinstated.

I think it would help if everybody could do what they can to de-escalate this dispute, but it's clear to me that Ludvikus is the problem and not the others involved, most of whom do not seem to be habitual drama mongers. Folks seem to think that if Ludvikus can stay calm his edits are mainly OK, this I will take on trust, but he does not seem to be able to handle consensus going against him. That's his problem not that of consensus, IMO. Can we call this resolved for now? Guy (Help!) 16:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you an Administrator, Guy? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
He is, in fact, an admin. And has been here since 2006. → ROUX ₪ 22:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Therefore I give his position great weight. I will abide by whatever determination is made regarding my request to have my nine (9) Restrictions lifted from the family of articles related to historical revisionism. I just request that I be informed of the determination here made. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and if you check his contribs, he was already on talk archive 7 in January 2006 (so he's obviously quite a bit older); do a bit of checking before asking a question that sounds so loaded....
Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 22:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Who's "he"? Me? "You talking to me?" Taxi Driver (film) --Ludvikus (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Given this post by Ludvikus, this ANI is closed. -- PBS (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (What is it?)

Holocaust denial

Revisionist historians (American)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludvikus/Archive_12&oldid=991571639"