Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ludvikus: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:53, 4 October 2009 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →Drop it: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 19:27, 4 October 2009 edit undoLudvikus (talk | contribs)21,211 edits →Drop itNext edit →
Line 729: Line 729:


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. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 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. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
:Done. Your appearance at the '''ANI''' shifted the Consensus against me.
:Are you a WP Administrator?
:PS: Would be nice if your language were warmer, and less threatening. Don't you agree? --] (]) 19:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:27, 4 October 2009

This is Ludvikus's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 21 days 

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

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


The Signpost
24 December 2024

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

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

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:

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)

In reply to your questions on my talk page. Yes I am an administrator, no I am not the same person as User:PhilKnight, and neither PK or I were the administrators who imposed a two year block on you on 13 May 2008, that was User:El C.
If you wish to reply you can do so here as I am watching this page and it will keep the conversation in one thread. -- PBS (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. Like I said, I'm not interested in creating WP:Disruption.
  2. I've had differences over content regard the related subjects above.
  3. Now I understand that I have a difference, regarding content, with two (2) editors, you, User:Philip Baird Shearer, and User:North Shoreman.
  4. Now I believe there exists a conflict of interest since you are a substantial contributor to these articles, is that not true?
  5. I understand that the most important priority at WP is not causing WP:Disruption. So before I do anything more, I wish to resolve this issue.
  6. There was only One editor with whom I've had a disagreement with, and that is your colleague, User:North Shoreman, is that not true?
  7. Also, although you are a substantial contributor to these articles, you have not had any communication with me - except for these restrictions, right?
  8. Don't you think there is a better way to do things than to impose restriction on me merely because you agree with User:North Shoreman?
  9. It is against WP policy to Restrict or Bar an editor merely because of Content disputes.
  10. I also think you should consider the disruptive provocations I have been subjected to by this one editor, User:North Shoreman?
  11. Being #100% non-confrontational means (1) not engaging in an Edit war on any content pages at WP, (2) being extremely civil in communicating with other editors.
  12. That policy I've followed 100% since my return.
  13. Now I'm interested in coming to peace with the two (2) I'm engaged with.
  • First, I must have a civil relation with User: North Shoreman. It must be clear that I've only had a difference in agreement with him. That's 100% true. And I've been 100% civil with him - but he has not been so with me.
  • Now I wish to resolve my dispute with you. Since I've returned - this is the first communication I've had with you. It seems to me that your are now "WP:Restricting" me purely because of your disagreement with me over Content. Isn't that 100% correct?
  • And having a civil discussions, on my talk page - like these here - does not constitute "confrontation," right? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

>==WP:POV===

PS: To be fair, I've only now understand what was meant by the acronym "POV." I can now understand what User:North Shoreman may have meant by it. Unfortunately, because of his incivility, I did not see this view of his before. If there appears to have been a "POV Fork," I certainly did not intend that. And on this issue there should be a civil discussion. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User: North Shoreman is no more my colleague than any other editor including you.
You recently made this edit which placed this {{POV-intro}} and are you seriously trying to suggest that you have never read WP:NPOV and you did not understand this any of the seven mentions of POV in User_talk:Ludvikus/Archive 1 (I stopped counting after the first archive). -- PBS (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not willing to argue my decision you because past experience suggests that you do not listen, and I have not seen any indication that since you block was lifted that you have changed you behaviour even slightly. For example you have already retreated from "simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor." to "There was only One editor with whom I've had a disagreement with", so with less than a week of editing under your belt the "any editor" had been abandoned, on articles where you know from past experience you have been in conflict with editors who watch those pages. Why do you think you were blocked for two years? -- Please don't answer that question by posting here, instead please think about it.
However in the interests of natural justice, I will open an WP:ANI and will consider reversing my action if there is a strong consensus among other administrators that I should do so. --PBS (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ludvikus September 2009 -- PBS (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarification please. I don't understand. Are you saying you are not permitting me to write on any of the above Talk pages? I do not want to misunderstand your "restriction." Please clarify what you are prohibiting me from doing. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The restriction is on the pages listed in the bullet points above and their talk pages, and do not create pages which would mean adjusting the disambiguation page Revisionism to include them because they are on a similar topic.
I 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. As I think it likely you will stir up a hornets nest. Instead I suggest you pick a totally new area of interest (and hence group of editors) and practice "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." where the editors have no past experience of your editing style you can start with a clean sheet. --PBS (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
As this edit was made at 16:33, before you requested clarification and my reply at 17:05, I'll let it pass. But that is your last chance until the outcome of the ANI. -- PBS (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
So what should I do now? Am I supposed to defend myself on the Adm. Notice Board? I certainly did not expect any of this. I am extremely surprised that you've placed me in this Confrontational mode without any warning. I had no idea it was coming. Again, it seems I've had a content disagreement with one editor. I do not consider that a Confrontation. And even when complained about his uncivility towards me in his expressions of his views, I considered that a mere disagreement over content - not a Confrontation. Yet you placed these Restrictions against me - without any warning from you. So - again - I don't want this Confrontation. What should I do now that you've placed my name on the Adm. Notice Board? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Some sugestions

"When you're in a hole, stop digging." -- Denis Healey

In response to this paragraph

  • Read Misplaced Pages:Five pillars and the three content polices starting with WP:NPOV.
  • Accept the restriction on editing in the area of Historical revisionism as outlined above.
  • Choose some other areas of Misplaced Pages to edit and as PhilKnight has suggested, restrict yourself to WP:1RR.
  • If your revert is reverted then enter a discussion on the talk page. "Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words, consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood." (see help:talk and Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines). DO NOT fill sections and sections of the talk page with suggestions as you did in talk:Historical revisionism/Archive 3.
  • Do not move a page without listing the proposed move at WP:RM#Contested requests even if you do not think it is controversial.
  • As to what topics to choose, there are many different one to choose from, but if nothing springs to mind at once, then pick a good quality national Saturday or Sunday newspaper and start reading it. There are always tip-bits in such papers that can be added to articles (obituaries are often a gold mine). Or choose a technical area in Misplaced Pages such as Misplaced Pages:stub sorting or Misplaced Pages:Recent changes patrol to name two of many and if that leads to an article, you can improve further then go for it.

I hope this helps. If you need any further tips then please ask. -- PBS (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"From a Black hole nothing gets out." -- Physics 101

I sincerely appreciate your constructive tone and advice here. Who knows - maybe we can even be WP:Friends.
Unfortunately, there's no answer to my query as to what WP:Crime allegedly I've committed.
But I think you mean - in good faith - that if I keep asking about it - that would be digging a deeper hole for myself. But see The Trial, by Kafka.
Accordingly, I'll refrain, and spare you the hangman's noose.
But I do appreciate your positive advice for the future - my future at Misplaced Pages!
  • (2 Accept) I certainly understand that I'm not to edit the specific pages I'm now restricted from:
I must wait until the Restriction is removed before I dare edit there again.
But what do you mean by "accept"? I believe the Restrict is a mistake.
But I will not violate the Restriction you imposed - I'll simply wait until it's removed of course. Do I need to do more than that?
  • (3 Choose) By other area, you mean an area in which I'm not Restricted, right?
Your "Restriction" covers four (4) articles only, right?
Regarding WP:1RR, I understand you mean I'm entitled to One Reversion against an editor per article, right?
  • (4 Revert) This I find extremely useful (thanks), and I'll study it very carefully:
(a) help:talk and
(b) Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines).
I understand now - thanks to your observation, the need to be extremely concise on Talk pages of WP Articles.
I think you're right - assuming non-controversy may be best for to avoid.
But your suggestion, obviously offered in good faith, is unnecessary - I have no need external inspirations regarding topics for me to write on.

Historical revisionism & related pages

I certainly intend to honor your four (4) restrictions you listed above.

But I see no justification for you to restrict me from the Talk pages thereof?
Would you please reconsider just lifting the Restrictions regarding the Talk pages?
I think you are right - I must be much briefer in my postings.
But otherwise, what's the point of not letting me argue on how to improve these pages?
The Content pages must be edited by Consensus. But I'm not interested in editing these Content pages pages now.
I understand that you, and another editor, disagree with my views. So my views are not with the Consensus. I'll certainly honor that.

Revisionist historians (American)

===Historical revisionism (American)=== CORRECTION --Ludvikus (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
I see now - after the fact - how you might have misconstrued the above as a deliberate "Point-of-View Fork."
But I assure you that my intent was not that.
I do understand the need for a consensus.
But if you look carefully, User:North Shoreman substantially contributed to this article.
So I think that you found it to be a POV Fork because of his contributions.
My intent was actually (pardon my pun) a revision of an aspect of that phenomena based on new 2009 libertarian scholarship. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I wanted to write about these scholars:
  1. D. F. Fleming
  2. Charles A. Beard
  3. Gabriel Kolko
  4. Gar Alperovitz
  5. Harry Elmer Barnes
  6. Howard Zinn
  7. James J. Martin
  8. Sidney Bradshaw Fay
  9. Walter LaFeber
  10. William Appleman Williams

I did not Revert or Delete his contributions.

If a revisionist is successful and there is a paradigm shift, then they change the opinion of most historians, in which they are no longer revisionists, but main stream. They only remain revisionists while their views a minority.

"I Think your belief that there was a Fork is due to the substantial contributions made by User:North Shoreman. And because I did not want to Confront him (as per my promise)" -- NO. in the section called "Revisionist historians vs. Historical revisionism" in Archive 3 of the tlak page on "Historical revisionism" there was a consensus among the editors of that page at that time that there should not be a separate article called "Revisionist historians" and it should remain a redirect. You should have discussed creating a new article on the talk page of "Historical revisionism" and gained a consensus to do so. This is why I so strongly suggested that you spend the next few months leaning how Misplaced Pages works and how to get along with other editors.

"But I see no justification for you to restrict me from the Talk pages thereof?" "Would you please reconsider just lifting the Restrictions regarding the Talk pages?" NO. If you keep up this obsession with attraction to "Historical revisionism" there will probably be a consensus for an indefinite block on you.

The only imposed restriction on you are the specific articles mentioned above and the creation of new articles which would need to be added to Revisionism. The rest are suggestions that you do not have to follow (like 1RR and WP:RM) but are intended to help you keep out of trouble while you lean how Misplaced Pages editors get along).

The reason I did not just reimpose the block on you (and despite what you said at ANI I could have done so if I was so inclined) was because it was obvious from your behaviour that you had learnt nothing since you were blocked, and I wanted to help you. I hope that over the next 8 months that if you work on pages over which you are hold less strident POV (points of view), you will be able to develop you collegiate skills and start to understand how to cooperate with other Misplaced Pages editors.

There are millions of articles to work on and I suggest that you do not work on or comment on th the talk pages any articles that you edited between the 6 April and 13 May 2008 and I strongly suggest that you work on articles in no way related to historical revisionism, because you will not help you case if during the next eight months you edits are chiefly to articles on the fringe of historical revisionism (like the biography articles you mentioned above and articles like "Historiography of the Cold War ... contradicts the historical revisionism articles, and it is not linked to them.") as that defeats the whole point of the restriction. The restriction should be used as a chance to lean new skills in how to cooperate with other editors in developing Misplaced Pages. -- PBS (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you have claimed on some other user pages "Well, I'm only Restricted to four (4) articles" Please read what I wrote carefully "Revisionism or any page which is listed there." as currently there are eight articles listed on that page. --PBS (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm not interested in Confrontations with editors. Therefore, I intend to Ban myself from Misplaced Pages until you re-track your positions as expressed here. My current intention is not to make Any contributions to Misplaced Pages Content pages until such time as you modify, or qualify, what you have just said here (immediately above).
  • It is impossible for me to know what pages exactly you want me not to edit.
  • I also am extremely disturbed by the "personal attacks" on me by your saying that I'm "obsessed" with Historical revisionism related articles, etc. Your Dialog with me now is obviously a Confrontation which I do not wish to engage with. I will not edit Any articles (zero) for Misplaced Pages until such time as you retract your "personal attack" on me. I intend to Ban myself from Misplaced Pages - unless you take back what you have just said about me - and clarify exactly which articles you want me not to edit. I find the tone and style of your discourse here Disruptive to me personally, and it is impossible for me to make any contributions. Unless You can find a way of restoring my belief in your Good Faith - I see that's it's impossible for me to continue. I urge you, please, to reconsider what you have just written about me. If you do not modify this impossible set of restrictions, I feel like I should not write anything at Misplaced Pages. You now have upset me extremely by your unfair restrictions and generalizations about my conduct since my return. That gives me a horrible impression of Misplaced Pages. I consider this a Confrontation of you against me. And I do not wish to have any part of this. I have made countless contributions, original Content articles to Misplaced Pages. And you obviously have no knowledge, or appreciation of that. And I've had productive exchanges with hundreds of editors as well.
  • Therefore, since I do not wish to engage in Confrontations with editors, I will Ban myself from Misplaced Pages - unless you take back, or substantially modify, much of what you've just said here about my work for Misplaced Pages. Unless I can get a good, working, relationship with you, PBS I feel like keeping myself away from Misplaced Pages.
  • Here's a partial listing of my successful work for Misplaced Pages: .
  • Unless you acknowledge that I have made many valuable contributions to the Content of Misplaced Pages, I do not see what point there is for me to continue.
  • It is clear (by the above) that you assess my many positive Content contributions to Misplaced Pages as non-existent, and therefore I have just lost my belief in your "good faith" towards me personally. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 
    "Within historiography, that is part of the academic field of history, historical revisionism is ..." - Historical revisionism
  • In the above, you are using against me the fact that I disagree that "historiography" "is a part of the academic field of history." If you insist on prohibiting me from raising such objections, within the confines of Misplaced Pages rules, I do not see the point of my participation at Misplaced Pages at all. The WP:POV Intro Tag I placed on the Historical revisionism page is due to my extreme caution. But it seems that you do not understand my gentle suggestion that the relation between Historiography and History is misleading or inaccurate. Or do you belief that this opening sentence is appropriate and accurate as it stands? I really do not know what you think about that. But I do know that you have absolutely no basis for attacking my on this point - as a reason why I should be restricted. I do not wish a Confrontation with you. If you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge this point, I do not wish to many any substantive contributions to Misplaced Pages. And you certainly make me feel know like my value to Misplaced Pages is Zero. You have not shown me now that you have a Good Faith interest in me as a Wikipedian. Unless you cease this provocation into a Confrontation with you, my intent is to go on a voluntary, hopefully, long, leave of absence. And I realize that you may use this Good Faith expression of my true feelings to turn my Restriction into a Ban. If that is your true desire, so be it. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


<-- I will not discuss with you on this page or any other page anything to do with the content of the restricted articles, so please stop posting comments like "In the above, you are using ...".

It is not my intention to insult you, so as you do not like the term 'obsession with' I have replaced it with 'attraction to'. You wrote "It is impossible for me to know what pages exactly you want me not to edit." NO it is easy for you to know what pages I have restricted you from editing. They are precisely described between the two lines where I placed the restriction which is marked with a stop sign and a white diagonal cross produced by the file "Image:Stop x nuvola.svg".

Non of the rest of the advise given such as keeping to the 1RR rule, is part of the formal restriction. It is advise to help you avoid confrontation, as is the advise not to edit any of the other article that are not restricted but are in the orbit of historical revisionism, (for example if an article has links to one of the other restricted articles or link thorough a redirect to one of the restricted articles).

The restriction, and the advise are meant to allow you to spend the next eight months developing skills on how to cooperate with other editors to produce better articles. If you do not wish to take advantage of these months to do that, and instead wait until the restrictions are lifted, to start to edit the articles listed in the restriction, then it is likely that you will make the same mistakes as you have in the past--because, as far a I can tell, you do not seem to understand yet what it was about your interaction with other editors, which brought about the two year ban--and then the consensus would almost certainly be for an indefinite block. PBS (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarrification and removal of the offending word - I appreciate very much your response and now feel that there's some hope; however, there remains one serious issue left as far as I'm concerned.
  1. This paragraph of yours makes it clear that I'm restricted by you from editing the explicit four (4) articles related to historical revisionism. I certainly understand that you are a Misplaced Pages Administrator who has the authority to impose these Restrictions. So I certainly can and will obey that Restriction(s) - until such time as it is Removed. But I'm still not clear whether your also Restricting me from the Talk pages - but I'll check that out first before I make any moves that are inconsistent with your imposed Restriction(s).
    See the sentence above "I noticed that you have claimed on some other user pages ... Please read what I wrote carefully 'Revisionism or any page which is listed there.' as currently there are eight articles listed on that page. --PBS (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)"
  2. I do appreciate your advice. A good deal of it is very useful and beneficial to working on Misplaced Pages.
  3. However, this item of yours is still filled with "personal attacks" on me - which also are untrue. Since editor Phil lifted the WP Ban on me, I've been extremely cautious regarding my dealings with any other editors. Now I see that I only have had a problem (and still have) with only ONE editor, namely you. You are a WP editor and a substantial contributor to the historical revisionism family of articles. That obviously gives you great power at Misplaced Pages over these articles. And I accept that as reality to be lived with. However, I will not accept the "personal attacks" you still are hurling on me. My first Ban(s) was imposed in relation to Philosophy; Administrator BrownHairedGirl participated in imposing said Ban on me. My solution was, and is, to Restrict myself from the Philosophy article - because I believe(d) that I cannot contribute productively to this article. My second Ban was with respect to "On the Jewish Question imposed by editor "El_C." Here also, I have not returned at all simply because I wish to avoid Confrontations at WP over this article. But now, after my return, you are the ONLY editor I have trouble with. Your "Personal Attack" on me now is Disruptive to me working at WP. It seems to me that there is only a Content dispute between you and me - and you have Restricted me from the articles for which you contributed over the several years we have both been at Misplaced Pages. However, I am not Confronting you on your Power to have imposed that Restriction - since it now obviously has a Consensus among other Administrators. But your characterization regarding my Misplaced Pages skills is simply just that - an Untrue Personal Attack. Again, you are the Only editor I have had a problem with. I thought previously that it was two - but I was mistaken. That other editor seems now, in retrospect, resolved his differences with me. So I now realize that I only have had a Confrontation with you since the lifting of the Ban on me. Unless we - you and I - can come to some resolution of this Confrontation - my feeling is that I'm being Disrupted in my ability to work productively at Misplaced Pages. My feeling is that I should have nothing at all to do with Misplaced Pages. Notice that your sweeping personal attack on me is not supported by by any WP:Diff's involving my current conduct since the ban was lifted. It seems to me that you have strong convictions about how historical revisionism related articles should be written. Fine. But that doesn't warrant you to characterize me effectively as an INCOMPETENT WP editor. You are effectively "Libeling" me as a contributor to WP. I've contributed many Content article to WP. As you must know (being an Administrator) Content editors must be import - without content, there can be no Encyclopedia. Your tone here still depicts me as a worthless trouble maker at WP. If that is how you see me - especially since the Ban was lifted by a very nice other Administrator, I still find it impossible to continue working at Misplaced Pages. If that's what you really wish to accomplish with this Personal Attack on me - so be it. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cookie

And did you take away my Cookie? If so, why? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. Here it's given to me: .
  2. And here it looks like you took it away: --Ludvikus (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. I've noticed that you apparently were also given the same Cookie which you've kept: ] --Ludvikus (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  4. So if you've taken my Cookie from me, won't you please give it back to me ? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It is spam, put it back delete it or do what you like with it on this page. I removed it so that my comments were at the bottom of the page and I wanted my reply to be clear to you. --PBS (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
(1) I don't know what you mean: It is spam. It seems to be the word of a WP editor who spends his/her time promoting Love & Good Will at Misplaced Pages. I certainly could use that here after all those un-nice things you're still saying about me, which I think are un-true. And I notice that you kept it on your Talk page (even though you consider it "spam.". So since you removed it. I'd appreciate it if you put it back on my Talk page at an appropriate place. But if it's "spam" meaning it violates WP policy, it should be prohibited. So please explain to me what you mean by "spam." --Ludvikus (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
(2) And I've just looked up: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam. Is that what you mean by "spam"? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
(3) It looks to me like User talk:The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster spends his time at WP spreading Love & Good Will. I certainly think that was extremely useful in the context of the discourse you & I had participated in. At the moment you sound to me like the God of the Old Testament punishing me for violating one of the Ten Commandments. My knowledge of Hegelianism reminds of the distinction introduced into the History of Western Philosophy between the "new" Love (through Jesus) and "old" Law (through Moses. But if you see that Christian act of this Second Coming as merely "spam," that is your privilege. But since you removed this posting I would appreciate it very much if you restore it - I think it useful in its depiction of me as such a horrible, unworthy, incompetent, Misplaced Pages editor as you still are depicting me here on my Talk page. Since your extremely interested in historical revisionism, I assume that you have some expertise in the subject. So I'm asking you to consider some revisionism regarding your portrayal of my status as an incompetent Misplaced Pages. Can you please be a revisionist as it pertains to me as a Wikipedian editor? Can you please consider revising more those horrible generalizations about me regarding my conduct as an editor AFTER my return to Misplaced Pages? Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

See spam (electronic). I removed it so that my message about your restriction would not be hidden by that spam.--PBS (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC) As you have asked me to restore it here it is

Cookie

The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I don't need a link to my page, my job requires no thanks. However, I have been looking for the cookie design with the link on it...--The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

World Domination update

I've suggested merging World Domination into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I hope you are not offended in any way. I think you are very sincere and well-meaning, but the article itself is no longer up to WP standards as a stand-alone article - IMO as I explained at the discussion. Discussion is at Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Merger proposal. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge. Not at all. If you look at the article before I got to it - and trimmed it - it was, I think, original research. So your proposal is certainly sound - as far as I'm concerned. I'm confident that you can do the appropriate editing on that. It certainly does not deserve an article to itself since it's primarily mostly that pejorative I've described. But it used to be a rather long article full of nonsense which has now been edited out (and I'm pleased to have been part of that reduction and revision which now makes your move possible). --Ludvikus (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I've informed everyone who voted on the AfD. Let's see if anyone else weighs in before merging. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Solicitation

is unacceptable see WP:meat puppet -- PBS (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I object and am offended at being called a "meat puppet"! Ludvikus did not invite me to "come to Misplaced Pages", as the policy states, I have been here for years. Nor do I even agree with his "side of the debate." I think Holocaust denial and Historical revisionism are two different things and the other should only be mentioned in each article in a short note explaining that fact. I hope I have understood the "debate" correctly, perhaps I am not as smart as Ludvikus thinks I am. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for your interjection. I also deny that neither you, nor I, are "meat puppets"! And I apologize to you for the distress that this unfounded accusation obviously has caused you. I certainly have no idea what your views are. We met, what, a day ago? And only here - in cyberspace. Have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • On the contrary - see exactly what this rule recommends and notice that I've done precisely what it recommends (says User:Ludvikus):
Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Misplaced Pages articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Misplaced Pages and supporting your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to remain civil, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.
  • Don't forget that there also is this WP:Boldness rule. As I see things at the moment, there's only a Content dispute between me and you over Revisionism. And I've sought the assistance of another Wikipedian who might be helpful. I've not at all prodded him to voice a view that agrees with me. In fact, I have no idea what his position is, or will be. I just think he might contribute a view that might assist in reconciling the views which might be different between us - you and me. When I said that I did not intend to Confront other editors, I meant it. At the moment there's this situation where you disagree with my editing regarding the (4) articles you have banned me from. I accept the Ban. It has been apparently approved by other Administrators. And I accept that fact. But it seems to me at this moment, your criticism of me is totally inaccurate. The rule you cite says precisely this: "seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians". That's exactly what I've done. I have absolutely no understanding how you can use this rule against me in this instance. And I would appreciate your retraction very much. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • PS1: Thank you for giving me back that Cookie. I do appreciate it. It suggests to me that there is a possibility of us accommodating each other respecting our presence at WP. I sincerely wish that. You keep showing me some flexibility - and I appreciate that very much. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • PS2: I'm aware that this observation came to your attention as an alleged "topic Ban" by User:North Shoreman. I certainly wish very much to know his views, and to work more effectively with him. But I don't know how to do that. I know that he's also an editor extremely interested in historical revisionism. So if the both of you express a view opposite to mine, I would immediately recognize the consensus as being in your favor. So I would very much appreciate it if you helped me learn how to work better with this editor. I feel as if I upset him so much, that he's only interested in finding violations against me. I think that's why he came to your Talk page and suggested I had violated a "topic ban." As you know, the rules of Misplaced Pages are very complex. And are often in conflict - so that ultimately the most important attribute is Good Will among editors. I wish very much if you could help me create Good Will, and WP:Good faith among us there. Ironically, I feel that's a possibility with you, but I feel otherwise regarding this other editor. I do want a good working relationship with him. He has worked with me at WP since my return. So unless there is peace among us three (3) I think it will be just a matter of time before an excuse is found to Ban me. So what do you recommend on this issue with him? Here's the Diff indicating that this new issue originated by User:North:Shoreman: . --Ludvikus (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I will not discuss article historical revisionism with you on this or any other page until after your restriction ends.
Your misunderstanding about Misplaced Pages processes and editorial conduct is why you have the current restrictions on you. You are not in a content dispute with me, you are restricted from editing certain Misplaced Pages articles because just about the first thing you did on your return to Wikipeida was to return to the same behaviour that helped to get you blocked. For example you went ahead and created an article which a previous consensus had decided was not appropriate. As it happens you had a new publication which may have persuade editors that such an article was justified. But rather than open up a discourse at talk:Historical revisionism to discuss if the consensus on this issue had changed, you just went ahead and created the article.
You were warned at the ANI by User:Bwilkins not to try to wikilawer your way around what was being said and yet you are still trying to do it! After you past behaviour arguing that you are being bold and quoting "seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians" does not help your case. If you had been and read the five pillars and followed the advise given about following WP:dispute resolution given to you by user:PhilKnight, you would realise that that sentence means file an RfC (to which it links!), not meat puppetry. As you are restricted from editing the talk pages as well as the articles, you can not follow the usual dispute resolutions, for those pages until the restriction is lifted. I included talk pages as well as the article pages, to stop you disrupting this area of Misplaced Pages by processes other than just editing the content of those pages. I am not going to comment further on the restrictions I placed on you but if you continue to attempt to influence editors to act as proxies for you, or if you attempt to initiate processes such a mediation on any of the restricted articles (including those listed on the revisionism dab page) I will block you account. I do not want to do that because, I don't want to be in conflict with you as I really want you to go and edit other areas of Misplaced Pages and lean how to edit collaboratively, so come next May you can again work on all of Misplaced Pages. -- PBS (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I find this discussion with you very productive and useful for my work at Misplaced Pages.
I certainly accept - and respect - your final word - which to Restrict me from a certain family of four (4) articles related to historical revisionism. My interest is only in clarifying the issue of why you chose it upon yourself to Restrict me. I now realize that it was for one reason alone, namely my creation of the article Revisionist historians (Americans). You see that as a violation by me. If it is, I can assure you that it was not intentional. And it does not justify your characterizing my editing as so horrible as you still obviously think it is. I'm not now Wikilawyering. I'm simply trying to set the record straight. Your objection to my conduct is the creation of this said article: Revisionist historians (Americans). That's all, in fact, that I did wring - according to your reports above, right? And you cite that Diff to support you finding. I can only assure you that I did not intend to do that. And you should realize that I have a legitimate Content concern on this matter - because you yourself are now engaging in a discussion on this subject on the Talk page of historical revisionism. So clearly there is a Content dispute - otherwise you would not find it necessary to Talk about the issues I've raised.
I respect your restrictions. And I certainly intend to honor them.
However, I do not think your continued Personal Attack on me is at all warranted. I want to be clear on why you Restricted me. The only reason you restricted me is because I had created the article on those American historical revisionists, and you think that I did that in violation of the consensus which existed in 2007 or 2008 - is that not true?
But why must you continue in describing my work at Misplaced Pages as so much in violation of most of its rules? That is simply not accurate. It is merely a personal attack on me. I deserve to know exactly what it is that I did wrong according to you. I understand that you decided that this was a WP:POV Fork. But that's the ONLY thing I did wrong - according to you - right?
If there was any other violation - upon my return - please let me know, so that I will not repeat the mistake. You seem to forget WP:Assume good faith when it comes to me. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
PS: "The Donkey and the carrot." That's how things seem to be at WP. After each Ban, one gets better, but the burden gets more difficult each time one tries, or simply because of one's record. I think I must remind you that criminal records are often sealed at trial - simply because the fact that one committed a crime before does imply that one also committed one now. It seems to me that your judgment about me now is clouded by my previous record of having been banned before. That's why I need to know what exactly I did wrong - not the generalizations about my alleged WP misconduct conduct. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Haskins Medal - Proposed deletion

==Proposed deletion of Haskins Medal== Section title changed: --Ludvikus (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The article Haskins Medal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article has no references, just a lone external link to subject's own site. This does not qualify subject for a Misplaced Pages article.

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. Hellno2 (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recommendation. Done as you suggested. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ludvikus. You have new messages at DoktorMandrake's talk page.
Message added 00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DoktorMandrake 00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've responded on your talk page - with an important question! --Ludvikus (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages
You have new messages
Hello, Ludvikus. You have new messages at DoktorMandrake's talk page.
Message added 01:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{User:AJCham/Talkback}} template.

DoktorMandrake 01:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be extremely cautious in advising me that I may remove the Tag in 7 days. I created the article. So my understanding is that I may NOT remove the Tag. I've also replied on your Talk page. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I've replied again at my talk page - I like to keep the discussion in one place, rather than fragment it. DoktorMandrake 01:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. And I now answered you there. But since your advising me that I have a right to remove that Tag, I would appreciate it if (a) you did it yourself, or (b) posted your advice here, so that there is no misunderstanding as to the fact that I'm acting under your sound advice. Maybe you could also tell me (here, on my page) that the Tag removal is consistent with the views of other editors? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Contesting a proposed deletion

(edit conflict) As requested I am confirming here that if you believe the Haskins Medal article should not be deleted, the correct way to contest it is to remove the prod tag yourself - this is still the case even though you are the creator, and is described at WP:CONTESTED (and, for that matter, above).

I will not remove the tag for you, as that would indicate that I was the one contesting the prod, when in actuality I believe the concerns have not been resolved - the article still lacks reliable independent sources to establish and verify notability. It would probably be best to rectify this before contesting. Kind regards, DoktorMandrake 02:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC).

Thanks a million. Much appreciated. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
One of the suggestions that DoktorMandrake made was that you find a source to show that the award is notable. At the moment, despite your improvements to the article, you have not cited any references for any of the information on the page. If you do not know of any third party sources to show notability you can easily find some with a Google search on . For example here are a couple of reliable third party sources returned on the first page which show it is a notable award and explain a bit about it.
  • Canadian Who's Who 2001, Volume 36 by Elizabeth Lumley, p. 500
  • The Journal of Value Inquiry, Volume 41, Numbers 2-4 / December, 2007. DOI 10.1007/s10790-007-9093-5, p. 419-427. "New" by John M. Abbarno Associate Editor Abstract
-- PBS (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you very, very much, WP Administrator PBS. What I find most important - more important than that one article - is the fact that you are giving me constructive advise. My number one priority - at the moment - is to learn how to make piece with you. And your constructive advice here is very encouraging. I'd like to observe the following learning experience: (a) I have to be able to identify those articles which are controversial - more particularly, those where edit wars may have taken place, for example. And (b) in such articles one must proceed very cautiously. I understand that the articles you've listed here (above) are such articles.
  • Now regarding your recommendation, specifically, I'd like to point out that I only wished to create a {{stub}}. If I cannot get support in the development of this article, and it is deleted, rather than expanded, so be it. However, I'd like you to see that I've expanded the article tremendously since that Flag to delete was on it. Also, I think now the article is linked to so many articles within Misplaced Pages which make reference to the Medal, that I cannot imagine it being deleted if WP rules are followed. But I understand (and accept) that at Misplaced Pages it is Consensus rather than Truth which rules. Have a nice day, and I sincerely hope we could become WP:Friends, even if we never agree on the contents of the topic over which, at the moment, we disagree. Sincerely, --Ludvikus (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • PS: If you don't mind, I'm going to Cut & Paste, and Post, your informative recommendation, you've here made, on the Talk page of the Haskins Medal article, so other editors there can benefit from it as well. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Also note this posting at the Talk page of said article:
WikiProject iconAwards NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards
NAThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
--Ludvikus (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Also note this posting on the Talk page (of said article):
This is Ludvikus's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 21 days 
--Ludvikus (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And finally note this there:
WikiProject iconBooks NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
NAThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Said award is presented for a distinguished book in the field. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

References - Sources

The Medieval Academy of America is a distinguished medievalist academic institution. And it posts its "recent" recipients of the Haskins Medal online here: . So I don't see the need for more references to avoid deletion. And are the (source - reference) Flags necessary? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources/references are now in the Footnotes and External links. So am I within my rights to remove the two (2) Flags asking for sources? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Readers are not mind-readers--they should not have to guess that the sources are on line, or in the external links, or that a different footnote may also cover those sections--so before removing the requests for sources add citations for the information,(in a similar manner as I did for the two example ones I added). Removing requests for sources without providing in-line citations could be seen as a breach of WP:PROVEIT. -- PBS (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
That reference - WP:PROVEIT - is something I haven't explicitly studied. It's useful. But I did edit the article - Haskins Medal - substantially - before I removed the Tags. Now I feel extremely disappointed in you. Although I've created this {{stub}} all by myself, you have not complimented me on that at all. All you can find here is what I've done incorrectly. It appears to me that you're only interested in compiling a record against me. I do not see any, real, WP:Good faith towards me yet. You make me feel like you are big brother of Nineteen Eighty-Four who's looking for a reason to get me Banned. It's really beginning to feel like I'm wasting my time at Misplaced Pages. I have not yet heard a single, encouraging word from you which shows that I'm an excellent Misplaced Pages? Don't you think it's time to remove the Restriction you've imposed on me? It's unfortunate that I haven't been able to keep myself away from Misplaced Pages yet. And if that be so - it would be your failure to find a single good thing that I've done. Why am I spending my so much time at Misplaced Pages in such an unfriendly environment? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not compiling a record against you, I am trying to advise you so that you will learn how Misplaced Pages editors interact, so hopefully no one will feel the need to raise an RFC or any other request for sanctions against you.
If a person adds a request for citations to an article, usually it means that if you are interested in removing the {{fact}} template or whatever, then a suitable in-line citation is given. Over recent years (see Misplaced Pages:100,000 feature-quality articles), there has been a general move to cite most facts in the better articles. When I create an article whether a stub or something larger I always cite my sources (eg. Edmund Thomas (parliamentarian) and Cromwell's Other House). -- PBS (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

On top of things

Thank you, I can see that you are a Hawk.--Kettenhunde (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kettenhunde (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC) 

Nothing!, and the point is very simple, look around, you can't denied that the jews are on control, look how they
push the US against Iran, but they don't follow IAEA regulations, they talk about the nazis and look what they do
to the palestinians, that is power, that is been in control, they are behind every major government around the world.
Excuse me if a touch a nerve, but even if I was living in china I would say it as it is.
--Kettenhunde (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to qualify my comment as anti-Semitic, I apologize but the reality is that I have studied all 
this stuff for over 30 years and if there is not some reality on what we see around, what is reality?

--Kettenhunde (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop immediately!

The above is obviously an expression of a belief in the Protocols of Zion. This is not the place to express this belief. It appears that you're a new user. So I'm warning you that one more outburst of expressing your belief in this pejorative view, and I will demand that you be Banned from Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not the place to express your own private beliefs. There's absolutely nothing beneficial to Misplaced Pages by this posting of yours above. Don't do that anymore, and maybe Misplaced Pages will overlook this violation of its policy. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You studied things. But did you publish any books in a scholarly journal? 30 years of study means your not a child. So you should understand that this is not a forum for you to express your private beliefs. There are many places for you to do that.
I don't want my User page polluted with this garbage you've just posted on my page. If you want any more clarification - I strongly suggest this garbage be kept on your own Talk page. If you do that, I'll reply. But if you make anymore posting here regarding your Biblical beliefs in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I assure you that I will vigilantly report your misconduct to the Misplaced Pages Police and they may exile you from Misplaced Pages forever, with no chance of Parole. Or are you un-aware of how easily you can be expelled from Misplaced Pages? If you wish to answer - do so on your own talk page - and do not bring this filth to my own talk page again! --Ludvikus (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Ludvikus. You have new messages at Taemyr's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

How do I handle this by WP rules?

From my talk page:

See here: --Ludvikus (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have handled it. The only comment I would make is that I would not have added "Please return to my Talk page and sign your comment." (don't bite newcomers) or replied with "And what are you? What was the purpose of your posting at the Protocols of Zion's Talk page?" because it gave an excuse to the person to reply on your talk page (s)he did. If I was you, I'd delete your request and their reply from this page, because further comments by you will just allow the person to add more of the same. -- PBS (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your position. But I think you do not see mine. I was giving the newcomer the benefit of the doubt - I assumed good faith on his/her part, in spite of the nature of his posting (which you incidentally show no concern with - how come?). I noticed your visit to his Talk page: you only made a comment on his punctuation. I'm quite surprised that you've not taken it upon yourself to educate him on the purpose of Talk pages at WP. It seems you're treating him with "kid gloves." How come? I think he got my message. But I'm surprised that your only concern is with his punctuation.
At the moment I think I'm getting along extremely well with every Wikipedian. But on this matter - I'm very disappointed that you've only found fault with how I've handled this matter. Why aren't you giving me an "A" on my conduct here, on this issue? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
As I said you seem to have handled it. There is little more for me to say. -- PBS (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You could say that I handled it extremely well, and award me a WP:Barnstar for handling a very difficult situation, no? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • And now I'm watching you here: . Nothing like learning by example! I "should do as you do - not as you say," right? This is going be a very important learning experience for me! --Ludvikus (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the spelling corrections

Thanks for correcting my spelling errors on Sarah777's RfC. Thanks to events on WP:AN/I I posted this before I'd had a chance to check it for errors. I've also spent too much time on wikipedia sorting it out so needed to get some work done. I was going to come back and sort it later but you've done it for me. Thanks again. Dpmuk (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I only corrected the errors that were obvious. There are a few (minor ones though) in which I didn't know if you meant "it" or "this" - so I left it alone. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to have a proper look at it later. Dpmuk (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Im not allowed to post on Sarahs page but thought id respond to your post on there, you mentioned why Wales was so quiet on this matter. Category:Motorways in Wales and Category:Roads in Wales will answer that question. There are only a few motorways in Wales, and some if not all connect with England anyway so theyd have to be at (Great Britain). Also if you look at the road numbers Wales roads are assigned, they are high numbers and not something like the A1 or A2 which would clash with other countries. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I'll first share a little English secret about myself with you here (at the risk of being accused of being an Anglophone. My first cousin (my father's brother's son) is a taxi driver in London. So I can double check on your facts with him. I wish the Queen of England the best. Where the sun never set on her ancestor's former colonial holdings, there Democracy to root. And who could believe it - that Queen Victoria's greatest companion after the death of her beloved Consort, was her Prime Minister, Disraeli - not even a Commoner, but a man rooted in the Hebraic persuasion - while the French gave the world, just a little later, the Dreyfus affair. But I even forgive the French, and Germans too, because, after all, to what race do we belong? Why ... the human race. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I last visited my uncle in London in 1956. Is it still as cloudy and foggy as it was then? I'll never forget the heat of the fireplace, and the water bottles placed at my feet bu my uncle's housekeeper as I slept in my English bed not that far from Piccadilly Circus. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
lol uhoh you risk sparking a little war with the Queen of England term. Theres actually has not been a Queen of England for over 300 years despite it often being used, She is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, she is the British Queen, not the English one. :) As for the French and Germans, we are all Europeans here now anyway so love each other and have put aside centuries of European wars and disagreements, thats the official line anyway.
London certainly isnt as smoggy as it once was, although i certainly would not want to live there its far too over populated and traffic congestion is a nightmare. I dont know how people drive in London :\, they all nuts. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Please accept my apology to you, and to her Royal Highness, her Majesty, the Queen. But I thought she also carried her several titles, besides that of her United Kingdom title. I must have overlooked the specific act of Parliament which unified these four individual countries. Where does the Isle of Man fit in the British scheme of things? By the way, I'm also very fond of the late Bertrand Russell (for me it seems yesterday like he died. I'm currently re-reading his Principles of Mathematics. I'm also very interested in the rule - by your sovereign, over (German) Hanover. And also, about your Sovereign's title as King or Queen of France. When exactly was that title assumed. And when (if ever) was it abandoned. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Its an easy mistake to make, it is used all the time by the American media and sometimes even British media use the term. In Scotland some call the Queen the "Queen of Scots", but neither are titles she actually holds, although there are separate crowns and ofcourse she is Queen of Australia, Queen of Canada etc too. Isle of man is not part of the UK but as a crown colony Queen Elizabeth II is head of state there. As for Hanover and France, im not a royal historian and have no idea on those matters sorry. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The German House of Welf who is headed by the Prince of Hanover comes after the House of Windsor in the legitimate line of succession to the British throne; others such as the Wittelsbachs, etc. having been debarred from the line of succession due to their Catholicism. In point of fact, were all the Windsors to die without legitimate heirs (a highly unlikely event!), the descendants of Ernst August, Prince of Hanover (Princess Caroline of Monaco's husband) would succeed to the British throne.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Very informative - and interesting. Thanks! --Ludvikus (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Restriction 2

With regards to this request posted to my talk page, regarding this post by user:Bwilkins to the section "PBS" on the talk page of user:PhilKnight. I do not think it appropriate to lift the restriction on any of the articles or their talk pages listed in the Restriction. Note also the restriction includes the articles listed on the disambiguation page Revisionism, which is something I have pointed out to you more than once, but you do not seem to have acknowledged. -- PBS (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • So you're now effectively Restricting me to seven (7) articles, instead of four (4), adding three (3) more Restrictions like so:

Revisionism may refer to:

  1. Historical revisionism, the critical re-examination of presumed historical facts and existing historiography
  2. Historical revisionism (negationism), a particular form of historical revisionism concerned with the denial of facts accepted by mainstream historians
  3. Holocaust revisionism, any of various claims that standard scholarly descriptions of the Holocaust are substantially erroneous
  4. Marxist revisionism, a pejorative term used to describe ideas based on a revision of fundamental Marxist premises
  5. Revisionist Zionism, a nationalist faction within the Zionist movement
  6. Fictional revisionism, the retelling of a story with substantial alterations in character or environment, to "revise" the view shown in the original work
  7. Territorial revisionism, a euphemism for revanchism or irredentism
  • What Reason is there for adding three (3) more Restrictions? And you must have known that I believed - until this moment - that I was only restricted to four (4) articles. How come you never bothered to correct me on that? And you give no reason for refusing to lift the Restrictions from the Talk pages? Why?
  • I certainly recognize your authority to expand the Restrictions to Seven (7) and will obey you - until such time as the seven (7) Restrictions are lifted. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I have not expanded the restriction (it was in the initial restriction which I posted to this page), and it you had bothered read carefully what I have written, you would have seen that I have repeatedly told you that this is so. Search for these word strings above:
  • "I am not willing to argue my decision you because past experience suggests that you do not listen"
  • "The restriction is on the pages listed in the bullet points above and their talk pages, and do not create pages which would mean adjusting the disambiguation page Revisionism to include them because they are on a similar topic."
  • "The only imposed restriction on you are the specific articles mentioned above and the creation of new articles which would need to be added to Revisionism."
  • "I noticed that you have claimed on some other user pages 'Well, I'm only Restricted to four (4) articles' Please read what I wrote carefully 'Revisionism or any page which is listed there.' as currently there are eight articles listed on that page. --PBS (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)"
  • "See the sentence above 'I noticed that you have claimed on some other user pages ... Please read what I wrote carefully 'Revisionism or any page which is listed there.' as currently there are eight articles listed on that page. --PBS (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)'"
  • "I am not going to comment further on the restrictions I placed on you but if you continue to attempt to influence editors to act as proxies for you, or if you attempt to initiate processes such a mediation on any of the restricted articles (including those listed on the revisionism dab page) I will block you account."
-- PBS (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. You're an Administrator, and I'm merely an editor (I understand that).
  2. Misplaced Pages requires that I obey your orders.
  3. But I know how to count; I know the difference between Four (4) and Seven (7).
  4. Your "Restriction " only shows four Restrictions: .
  5. Your new "Restriction 2" - which you say is based on the DAB page shows seven Restrictions: revisionism (disambiguation).
  6. I'm not trying to "argue" with you - I'm trying to identify your Restrictions.
  7. I'm disrupted by your WP:Personal attack on me: that I "do not listen"; I "read" very well - I merely expect Misplaced Pages to inform me of its Restrictions so I could obey them.
  8. My understanding now is that there are (or "were") seven page Restrictions placed on me.
  9. You don't have to "argue" with me; but I have a right to know what restrictions are placed against me - so I can reasonably obey them.
  10. Your responsibility to me is to make sure I know which articles exactly I cannot touch.
  11. Maybe my misunderstand is due to my surprise that you do not accept the recommendation (of another Adm.) that I be only permitted to contribute to Talk pages.
  12. I thought WP etiquette means deference to User:Bwilkins, though you have the ultimate authority to do as you please regarding said Restrictions.
  13. So I apologize to you for that; I do not intend to offend, confront, or otherwise upset you; but this is about me; so if I'm unable to "hear" you - I apologize for that.
  14. I sincerely do not want to Confront you. And I do not understand why I have not been able to win back your good will towards me.
  15. I wish to form a good working relationship with you; but I do not know how to do it. Please help me out on that.
  16. If I still do not "hear" you, please do not give up on me; please try and explain.
--Ludvikus (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Your point 4 is just not true: "Your 'Restriction ' only shows four Restrictions:". The initial restriction included the words "Revisionism or any page which is listed there." something I have pointed out to you several times before today, so why do you persist in stating that it was not in the initial restriction? Why do you state that it is a new restriction (your point 5) when it clearly is not? If you read very well, why did you not read what I wrote initially and then pointed out to you, not once but several times that it included the links on dab page? Then you go on in point 8 "My understanding now is that there are (or 'were') seven page Restrictions placed on me" do you now understand that the restrictions have remained the same and have not changed, all that has changed is that you have finally read what was written?
BWilkins is entitled to his/her opinion, but less than a week has gone by and you still have not dropped your intense interest in this area for a day. All you are doing is reinforcing my opinion that I made the right call. As to your last three points, I suggest that you pick areas of Wikikpedia you have never edited before and contribute positively to those areas, and don't come back to revisionism until May next year (But I have already said that and I am just repeating myself). -- PBS (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Look here:

Historical revisionism

  1. Only now you've made yourself clear to me.
  2. You have a duty to make sure I understood your Restrictions. You never bothered to correct me on my miscounting.
  3. Even now you do not do the obvious - give me a clear, explicit, correct Count & List - which I couldn't possibly misunderstand.
  4. Instead, you've created a mine field, or trap, so I could be Banned from Misplaced Pages - it's obvious now that you have no "Good Faith" towards me whatsoever.
  5. It's clear to me that your only interest is in getting me Banned from Misplaced Pages.
  6. Even if I misunderstood - I have not violated ANY of your Restrictions - however many pages you're restricting me from.
  7. Why don't you do the obvious - just Number & List all the pages you wish me to keep away from.
  8. In addition, I was quite surprised that BWilkins made that recommendation. I do not remember why he took it upon himself to do so.
  9. In addition, your accusation regarding my "interest" in these pages from which you're restriction me from - is unfounded.
  10. I haven't edited any of these Seven (7) pages since your Restriction was imposed upon me - isn't that true?
  11. You have a duty to Misplaced Pages to state clearly (1) How I've violated your Restrictions - I haven't, and you know it, so you cannot tell it to Misplaced Pages.
  12. Again, I'm obeying your Restrictions - of keeping away from the Seven (7) pages.
  13. If there's any other page your Restriction covers - please let me know.
  14. Now you have a duty to specify exactly how I've violated your Restrictions - I haven't so far, right?
  • PS: A fundamental principle of Anglo-American jurisprudence is Due process, which requires adequate Notice. So far you haven't shown that I received it - obviously: quite the contrary.
Please assume good faith with me --Ludvikus (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
In reply to 1. I made myself as clear as I could, not once but repeatedly (as I quoted above). The reason I placed the restriction on the dab page is also clear: If any related pages are created over the next 8 months they will be listed and linked there, so by including that dab page I automatically keep the list up to date. I think you are still miscounting the pages (it is currently 9 pages including the dab page). To the best of my knowledge, you have only edited one talk page of a restricted article since I restricted articles, a breach I mentioned at the time (17:42, 26 September 2009), I do not know of any other breach of the restriction or have I accused of making any other breaches. -- PBS (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) Why don't you please list explicitly the nine (9) pages I'm Restricted from by you?

That way I could not possibly misunderstand you.
I do not wish to violate your Restrictions.
Please do that for me.
I'd prefer if you numbered them.
But bullets would be OK too.

(2) It's clear to me that I haven't violated any of your Restrictions to date.

The one (alleged violation) you mention - you said you let it pass.
You yourself crossed out one item above.
You know I contacted you for clarification.
You let it "pass" because of that.
You should not count it now as a violation of the Restriction.
You cannot say that you "let it pass" and now count it as a violation of your Restrictions.
That's clearly unfair.
Either it was a violation - or you let it pass; you cannot have it both ways.

(3) About the "8 months" period time frame for the Restriction.

That's not in the original Restriction.
You cannot fairly include that now.
Even Misplaced Pages should not permit that.
It appears like Restrictions are made up as one goes along.
You did not impose an eight month period in your Restriction.
So you should impose it now.

(4) And what's this about not knowing of other violations.

You've been watching me very carefully.
If you "do not know" of violations - you should say there aren't any.
Are you going to hit me with a violation tomorrow? Next week? For what happened before now?
Such qualification does not make me believe in your good faith towards me.
Do you want me to be a good Wikipedian? Or are you just looking to get me Banned?
Please make me able to assume "good faith."

(5) I suspect that you believe I violated the Rule against the WP:POV Fork rule.

I can see how you possibly imagined that.
But I assure you that I did no such thing.
I & User:North Shoreman both edited the {{stub}} revisionist historians (American).
You're a substantial contributor to this family of nine (9) articles.
You are not impartial - you are using your position as a WP Administrator to promote your POV options.
You did not contribute any Talk page remark when I entered the field you are now restricting me from.
It seems to me that there's a mere Content dispute between you and me (and no one else).
Like I said, User:North Shoreman contributed to the content of the "stub" I created.
Obviously, two opposed opinions - involves no consensus.
Suggestions you made in 2008 are irrelevant.
Articles evolve at WP constantly.
You wish to stabilize certain articles is only that - your wish.
It's rather ironic that you - an author of historical revisionism (so I reasonably assume you believe in it) - insist on prohibiting me from Revising the History content of said Restricted 9 articles.
So you have no reason to Restrict me.
  • I therefore urge you - for all of the above reasons - to immediately lift the Restrictions you unilaterally imposed on me without any warning whatsoever.
  • In the alternative, I ask that you honor the recommendation of your respected colleague, BWilkons, an editor of long standing at Misplaced Pages, and lift the Restrictions from the nine (9) Talk pages only.
Thanks for you consideration. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

user:El C blocked your account at 22:44, on 13 May 2008 for two years. Therefore the restriction I have placed on you will end at 22:44, on 13 May 2010. -- PBS (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Ludvikus

Please accept my apologies in getting back to you. I would very much like to contribute to the American revisionists page, and thank you so much for inviting me. I have a few projects I would like to wrap up first, and then I will get to work on that page. I might disagree with you slightly over whatever Barnes was ever a good revisionist, since there is a lot of evidence that there were some very unsavoury things going with German-history writing about the origins of World War I. I’m not certain if people like Barnes and Fay were aware of it, but they were used by such people as Major Alfred von Wegerer and his Centre for the Study of the Causes of the War-more about that in just a moment. Just as a preliminary suggestion for the page, I would like to see some mention of the contemporary political relevance of these historical debates. History and politics may be separate things, but there are much linked then what many people are willing to admit. To give a current example, look at the very nasty debate that has been going on in Israel since the 1980s between the so-called “orthodox” and “New” historians. Essentially, the debate revolves around the question of did Israel ethnically cleanse the Palestinians in 1948-49 or did the Palestinians flee from the fighting? This debate has very profound contemporary political relevance since if the “New historians” are right and Israel did expel the Arabs, then 1) the Palestinian demand for the “right of return” for all of the Palestinian refugees and their descendents would be powerfully boosted (and this is no small matter-the Camp David summit of 2000 fell apart on this issue) and 2) Israel’s moral legitimacy is being questioned here. This no doubt helps explain the incredible vitriolic way that this debate has been conducted. And nor this debate purely scholarly. Most of the “New historians” are usually doves, and quite a few are “post-Zionists”. By contrast, the most vehement of the “orthodox” historians tend to be hawks, and all of them are strongly Zionist. The precise rights and wrongs of this debate do not concern me here; I’m just using it as an example of how history matters, and how usually the most heated historical debates usually have some sort of contemporary relevance. Even the so-called “storm over the gentry” dispute which torn apart the British historical profession between the 1940s-60s actually quite a bit of relevance. The gentry dispute, which concerns the question was the English gentry rising or falling in the century before the Civil War and what does this have to do with the Civil War’s outbreak in 1642 might not sound relevant to the 20th century, but in fact it was. Karl Marx had said that a rising gentry caused the English Civil War, and the real question that was being debated here was Marx right.

Turning back to the American revisionist page, if you accept the Cold War revisionist case that if was the United States that was the aggressor, then that had a lot of relevance to how one understood the Cold War. Significantly, through Cold War revisionist school, through it was as old as the Cold War itself, did really start to become popular until the late 1960s, when the Vietnam War became unpopular. The heyday of Cold War revisionism was from the late 60s until the late 70s, precisely the same time period that the backlash against Vietnam was the greatest. The same thing goes with World War I revisionists in the 1920s-30s. The Treaty of Versailles had amongst other things, disarmed Germany, which is why the Germans tried so hard in that time period to discredit so-called the Kriegschuldlüge ("war guilt lie"). The obvious political relevance to this was that regardless if one brought into Fay’s version (everybody was guilty of starting the war in 1914) or Barnes’s version (Russia and France started the war in 1914), it still worked out the same-Germany did not start the war, and so Versailles should be scrapped. I know the page is about American historians, but I have a copy of Holger Herwig’s article “Clio Deceived” which is about German efforts to rewrite how World War I started in the interwar period, and that does have some bearing on the work of people like Fay and Barnes, and perhaps that should be brought into the page. Which brings up another topic I think we should consider, which is the impact of the writing of these various historians. In the case of the World War I revisionists, they did have an enormous impact on public opinion in the interwar period, and one of the main reasons for the sanguine public reaction to Germany ripping the Versailles treaty in the mid-1930s is because too many people had read books by people like Fay and Barnes, and believed that Germany did not start World War I, so Versailles was unjust. Just some thoughts. Thank you again for noticing my work, and inviting me to contribute to the page-I look forward to working with you!--A.S. Brown (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I find what you say extremely interesting. I would love to discuss this with you very much. However, User:Philip Baird Shearer has Restricted me from nine (9) unspecified articles in this area. So I think I should get permission from him to discuss this with you even here. Have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your confrontation with Toddy1

Take notice RE: WP:ANI against you

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE.

  1. Reverted twice (2x) against the consensus; and
  2. Introduced WP:Original research & a WP:Neologism.

I'm not really interested in continuing a dispute with you. If there is a way to resolve our disaggreement - great.

  • I believe you've Reverted the article against the consensus - that's not permitted by WP.
  • I think you hail from the former Russian Empire, or Soviet Union - so maybe you know about a Russian concept of "world domination." But this is the English Encyclopedia. So we do not have that concept here.
  • If we can solve our disagreement here - great. I'll drop the issue from WP:AHI.
  • Let me know if we can come to an agreement together (without the help of an Administrator).
Thanks, --Ludvikus (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Toddy1 has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chololately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding {{subst:Hershey Bar}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

How do you think I feel about the notice you placed on my talk page?

I have nothing against you. I had never heard of you before you placed this on a page on my watch list. I looked and was curious. This led me to Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Merger proposal.

Please, can I make a few suggestions.

  • The The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has entire paragraphs that have no citations. When you are talking about the World domination article, you call this original research and neologism. However, I strongly suspect that in the case of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article, the uncited facts are most likely true - they just lack citations. It would be a really great thing if someone who was actually interested in the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion went through the article and put in the missing citations.
  • Like most people, I have never read the book, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But according to the summary of it in the article, in 1901 someone produced a a black propaganda book alleging that the Jews wanted to create something like the League of Nations (protocol 5). Why would people in 1901 have found this threatening? All of this needs better explaining in the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article. It would help a lot if the various allegations about what book says had quotations from the book, and citations to the relevant pages of the book. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a reliable source about what the book says (though an extremely misleading one for anything else).
  • It is not clear from the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article that the book actually alleges that the Jews want to achieve world domination. Though it is clear that some people think that it does.
    • If the book does make this allegation, this needs to be made clear, with quotations from the book, and citations.
    • If, as you seem to be claiming in your alternative article on world domination, the book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was the origin of the idea world domination or world conquest, then this means that the book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is very significant. This claim ought to be put into the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article and backed by good quality citations (not from books by nutcases such as conspiracy theorists and "authorities on the occult"). I suggest that you need quotations and citations for this. If you do this, you must be prepared for people to advance contrary statements, which will also need to be backed by sources.
  • Regarding the World domination article, I suggest that you leave it alone for a couple of months. If you are able to make the improvements to the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article suggested above, then it can be dealt with later.

Finally, when you make posts on people's talk pages, please think about how they will feel about it. Big red polygons with white crosses are hardly likely to make people feel good about you. Use admin pages only as a last resort.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear User:Philip Baird Shearer. I would appreciate it very much if you advised me as to an appropriate response to this contributions to my talk page. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ukraina

In the English language, it is common to write "the" before the names of countries whose name begins with "U". For example:

  • The United States of America
  • The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
  • The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • The Ukraine

No difference. This is a matter of the English language, not something the president of Our Ukraine is entitled to make rulings on.

In English there are two pronunciations of Ukraine. (1) like you-crane (2) like you-cry-n The version used on English language radio stations in Ukraine is (1).

The way Ukrainian people say the name of the country is oo-cry-ee-ne. I think Ukraina is better transliteration of this. But Ukraine is the English language word.

Ukraine is a good place for holidays. The best way to get there is to use Austrian Airlines, and change at Vienna. This airline does good quality maintenance on their aircraft and so is safe. You can get flights from Vienna to nice cities in Eastern and Central Ukraine. People in Eastern and Central Ukraine speak Russian as first language. People in the parts of Poland that were annexed in 1939 speak Ukrainian. Since I do not know your interests, I do not know if you would like Kiev. I think that if you are a nice guy, you would probably want to avoid it, and go somewhere nice like Dnepropetrovsk, or Donetsk. Climate is better is better in Dnepropetrovsk and Donetsk. Kiev is really great if you are looking for confidence tricksters, ticket touts who charge 50 Euro for 7 Euro ticket, or prostitutes. All hotels in Kiev have English language listings of prostitutes for use of foreigners, disguised as English language 'newspapers' with names like "Kyiv Post". Eastern and Central Ukraine are much better. Do you have holiday for Christmas and New Year. Why not take entire holiday in a city in Ukraine. Grand Hotel Ukraine in Dnepropetrovsk is very nice and in the middle of city.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

btw - synagogues easy to find in city centre in Dnepropetrovsk--Toddy1 (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Highways & byways

I've responded at my place. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Protocols

I have looked at the state of the article on the Protocols of Zion as it was at the end of 2006, and it is very easy to see that this deserved to be a featured article.

The current state of the article is not so good. I have made some improvements today and last night. But I think it the article at it is in late 2009 needs improving.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The changes I have made so far are of several types. I have been careful to state what they were in the summaries.

  • Making citations clear. For example, I found that most of the first seven citations were unclear as to what document was being referenced. With one citation, I changed the text to a quotation from the source, as that made it clearly defensible; it did not change the sense of the text; again the source being cited was made clear.
  • With the statement that the document was written in the first person singular, I corrected this, because it is mostly written in the first person plural.
  • Minor typing corrections to edits I have made.

--Toddy1 (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I noticed your comments. But I made heavy changes to the content of the opening paragraph! I'm an expert in the field - I own almost everything important about this subject. I'm respected by the community in that area. I made many contributions to almost all the related article - even images. It's really very complicated stuff. So it's hard to write about. It's a challenge. And it's very easy to make a mistake. But I've been studying this stuff for years. Most people think it's just a "book." But it's not. In 1903 it was a series of articles in Znamya (newspaper). Have a nice Sunday - by the way, my family is from Ukraine - Drohobych, to be exact. My maternal grandfather owned three oil wells in the nearby town. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Drop it

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. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Your appearance at the ANI shifted the Consensus against me.
Are you a WP Administrator?
PS: Would be nice if your language were warmer, and less threatening. Don't you agree? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Categories: