Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:44, 26 September 2009

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Archives
from	2006 August 28
Archive 1 to	2007 September 25
Archive 2 to	2008 April 24
Archive 3 to	2008 May 3
Archive 4 to
Archive 5 to
Archive 6 to
Archive 7 to
Archive 8 to	2009 September 1

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Proposed deletion of World domination

The article World domination has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is strictly original research. No evidence is given that any of the real historical information is related to the topic of "world domination." No references are given for fictional "world domination", or that it has even been discussed in secondary sources.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The expression "world domination" is actually used by crackpots in their conspiracy theories. Unless, the article is edited substantially to reflect this usage, I support the deletion of the article. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've also noticed the qualified usage "(Jewish world domination)" here: "List of conspiracy theories." --Ludvikus (talk)!

File source problem with File:3 The Cause of World Unrest (New York - 1920).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:3 The Cause of World Unrest (New York - 1920).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"The Cause of World Unrest" is an extremely important anti-Semitic text. What Henry Ford's "The International Jew" was in the United States in relation to the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," this text was in Britain. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

{{unblock|(1) 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. (3) I've been blocked for over a year already, I believe (but I haven't counted it - I've lost the count. (3) I'm being requested to contributed my observations regarding proposed editing of article - but I'm unable to respond because of my being blocked. (4) I have absolutely no interests in any confrontations at Misplaced Pages which would lead to a "block" - so there's really no need to block me any longer.}} --Ludvikus (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Blocked for well over a year, positively worded unblock request, so I'll give you another chance. If you get into difficulties, I suggest you pursue dispute resolution. Request handled by: PhilKnight (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Howard Zinn

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Howard Zinn, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nowadays the use of the term "revisionist" without any qualifier leads people to assume that the subject is a Holocaust denier, which is not what you meant. The fact that Zinn is a "revisionist" historian in the American sense probably should not go into the lede, to avoid this kind of misunderstanding. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think otherwise. The "confusion" is due to Misplaced Pages having failed to do it's job of making the distinction, doing disambiguation, etc. In part, I think, that's why my article is so important: Revisionist historians (American). Because the job is not easy, does not justify Wikipedians like yourself simply giving up. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching Howard Zinn for a couple of days, waiting to see if I was going to leap in or not and am pretty satisfied, even happy about your resolution of the issue of revisionism. As far as wikipedia failing to do it's job, well it is folks like us who actually do that job and your article on American historical revisionism (yours right?) was an interesting and for me unexpected direction to go in. Life is supposed to be interesting. Carptrash (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive feed-back. Unfortunately, it's not easy to work in this community we know as Misplaced Pages. And only lately I seem to have learned how to improve my effectiveness. I think that the so-called Holocaust deniers have been so successful at promoting themselves as revisionists, that even Misplaced Pages was troubled by calling a noted living historian, like Howard Zinn, a revisionist. Now you may think what I've done is OK, but I'm not sure the editor who objects to the confusion will yet agree that it's safe to call Zinn a "revisionist" (in the good sense of the word. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I just emailed a historian, James Mullin, who seems to be using the term much in the way you are, and I am trying to learn to, to get an opinion. I either hear back from these folks or I don't. It's about 50/50. To many of us the word "revisionist' is a sort of dirty term with all sorts of implications but even the wikipedia article historical revisionism has little or no negative connotations. Life a wikipedia is a strange place. I have not mentioned this here (wikipedia) , but I was just interviewed by a world roving BBC crew doing a piece on "community" or something and we got into some of the frustrations involved. Probably will end up on the cutting room floor, but it was-interesting to try and put some of my feels into words. Of course my best answers occurred to me 3 hours after they'd gone. Oh well. Carptrash (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I do agree that Historical revisionism looks like someone's college term paper rather than a standard wikipedia article. However I am not sure that I am going to tackle it because I don't have the resources to do so. Since I work Fri, Sat, Sun I certainly will not do so in the next few days. And although I have a degree in history somewhere this sort of arguement is not one that really interests me all that much. It looks like trench warfare to me. We'll see. Carptrash (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not as bad as you think - if we read this informative reference: . --Ludvikus (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Global empire

I have nominated Global empire (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. Orange Mike | Talk 02:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It should be deleted. It's now only a REDIRECT because I've Moved/Renamed is contents so: List of major empires. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Repost of Jeff Riggenbach

A tag has been placed on Jeff Riggenbach requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Kingpin (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. You and me can't actually see the content that the page used to have (before it was deleted), but admins can, if you want to ask an admin I would suggest trying one of the ones on this list, pick someone fairly active, I'd suggest User:Accounting4Taste, User:Amalthea, User:Backslash Forwardslash, User:Balloonman, User:Closedmouth, User:Decltype, User:Drilnoth, or User:Frank, to name a few :). The reason I marked the page for deletion is because the old version of the page (the one which got deleted), had a discussion about it, and the result of that discussion was to delete the article. The discussion can be viewed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jeff Riggenbach. Naturally this doesn't mean that the article can never be recreated, it just means that simply creating the page is the wrong way to go around getting it back. To try a restore the article, please follow the steps at WP:DR. Best - Kingpin (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Restriction

I took you at your word when 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."

Yet it seems to me that you have almost immediately returned to Historical Revisionism and started to press the same sort of addenda as you were before you were blocked.,

User:North Shoreman has made it clear that you yet again in confrontational mode over these articles. If you edit or move any of the following pages, or their talk pages, or redirects, I will re-block you account until the the full two years of the shortened block are completed:

• Historical revisionism
• Historical revisionism (negationism)
• Revisionist historians (American), Revisionist historians
• Revisionist historians or any page which is listed there.
• Revisionism or any page which is listed there.

I made a suggestion on 17 May 2008, that "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." ,. I am not going to put such a restriction on you yet, but if I find that you are in conflict with any editor on any of the pages that you edited between 17:24, 6 April 2008 and your most recent block then I will reimpose the block until the full two years are up.

Ludvikus, there are literally millions of articles which you can edit, without returning to those which you were editing before you were last blocked, I strongly suggest that you do not edit, or move any article, (or their talk pages) that you edited between 17:24, 6 April 2008, and you last block which started at 22:44, 13 May 2008. -- PBS (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)