Wikipedia

User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 5

< User talk:Ludvikus
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Boodlesthecat in topic Anyone seen this movie?
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

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

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments2 people in discussion
 

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

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

Ludvikus, can you please explain the difference between Jewish question (disambiguation) and The Jewish Question (texts)? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Good question. (1) I did not rename it with "texts" at the end - someone else did. (2) I cannot give it an appropriate name - as you know - you helped put me on probation until June 15, 2008. So my hands are tied. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear. The content of the two articles appears to be the same. Can you please explain the difference. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
One page should be a DAB, the other, a list. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact is, both pages have the same content. Is there any reason why there should be two Wikipedia articles with the same content? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No longer so - as you just discribed. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I still can't see any substantive difference between the two pages. Ludvikus, if you can't explain why Wikipedia needs two pages with the same content, I'm going to nominate The Jewish Question (texts) at AfD. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
All Wikipedia lists start with "List of ...", so the proper name would be List of ... what? books with "The Jewish Question" in their title? books about the Jewish question? Give the matter some thought before you start moving articles from one name to another. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
(1) Don't worry. I learn my lessons. I will not Move anything (until June 15, 2008).
(2) Per your advice: The Jewish Question (texts) → List of texts on the Jewish question.
(3) PS: the time frame is obviously 1843 - 1948 (from Bauer to Israel)
--Ludvikus (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"List of texts on the Jewish question" is a limitless list. It could include every book written about antisemitism, Zionism, Jewish assimilation, Jewish emancipation, etc. Are you sure that's what you intend this list to be? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. It's a finite, well defined field - it is a Subject Classification of the Library of Congress. Librarians know pretty well what it means - they have to - they classsify books under it (or used to do so). --Ludvikus (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Philip Baird Shearer: Bold or disruptive

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

User Talk:JPG-GR (2): Request to move article Historical revisionism incomplete

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

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

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

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

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

User:JPG-GR (3): Request to move article Historical revisionism incomplete

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

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

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

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

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

User:JPG-GR (4): Request to move article Holocaust denial incomplete

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

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

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

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

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

Enough is enough

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

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

It's one thing to try to reinvent the wheel without familiarizing oneself with the basics (or learning the basics on-the-fly), and it's another to do it over and over again. This account has been blocked for six month in Feb. 2007 and for two months in October 2007.[1] But the same problems continue to reoccur. I am inclined to block for, say, two years. Does that make sense? El_C 22:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Block

 

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

The Protocols
 
First publication of The Protocols
Writers, editors, and publishers associated with The Protocols
Debunkers of The Protocols
Commentaries on The Protocols
  • Here - to the right - is just one small sample of my Productive work on Wikipedia which the vast majority of editors aproved!
  • It is a difficult area to edit - for obvious reasons - but my work was approved by all within the community that works on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion where I am very well known by the dedicated editors there.
  • I think the problem is that User:El_C is both an Editor and an Administrator - and I'm not - and he disapproves of my editing of the article: On The Jewish Question.
  • It is also too easy to call someone disruptive and then point to events a year ago as proof that there was disruption here. I've learned much since, and WP:Good faith mistakes I may have made a year ago - when I was a novice - I know I do not make now.
  • I believe I have been WP:Bold rather than WP:Disruptive. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • My main problem seems to be with user Malik Shabazz who I believe is WP:Stalking me for reasons I cannot comprehend.
  • With other editors - except one - I have had honest strong differences - but they have been resolved.
  • Editor User: Mikkalai was the sources of my bannishment last year, and though we've clashed this year, I've learned to get along with him - and with all due respect, if I can get along with him, I can do so with anyone else - without causing any disruption.
  • It is User:Boodlesthecat who's been in conflict with me lately. He has commenced an Email exchange with me and I am responding. Where it will lead - I do not know.
  • Also, I've been given very recently useful advice by administrator User:Jpgordon regarding the need to compromise at Wikipedia - and I've been listening to him. He even advised User:Boodlesthecat - effectively on my behalf - that the use of that synonym for "masterbation" ("ono ..." something) against me was not proper "Manners" at wikipedia even if what it implied were true. I endured that Disruptive provocation and responded appropriately.
  • Even Administrator User:Gwernol - who had blocked me three (3) times last year - contacted me this year regarding what I believe was a misunderstanding. We had an exchange. I explained myself. And he must have been satisfied because he dropped the matter. I think that if he thought that I was Disruptive he would have definitely blocked me. But he didn't. I assume because he was satisfied.
  • I've added Linked User names to each distinctly headed comment made by the editors who have communicated with me on this Tak page. That, I believe, helps in the impartial review of my conduct at Wikipedia. And I stand by that record. I have nothing to hide. Any impartial Administrator who wishes to determine if there was Disruption at Wikipedia, and determine its cause, needs now only to carefully scrutinize my Talk page.
--Ludvikus (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

?

Decline reason:

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

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

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

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

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

User:Cobaltbluetony (2): Concurrence

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

To Administrator El_C

Latest comment: 16 years ago55 comments5 people in discussion

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

I won't even begin to try to collect evidence of how many times you have been warned about everything that is discussed here. I fear it's too gargantuan a task. Suffice it to say, you've endured blocks before so you know what's expected of you. Moreover, you appear have an agenda for editing here that is too dangerous for Wikipedia, especially if you involve living persons or links to living persons implicated in your agenda. Don't even pretend that you are only recently aware of how the community views your actions, behavioral and otherwise. It's insulting to everyone's intelligence and further degrades your reputation here. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, the issues were (1) WP:Moves - for which Administrator User:El_C put me on probation until June 15, 2008, and (2) alleged Copyright infringement which were delt with by Administrator User:Jpgordon. Please do not engage in Ex post facto proceedings. Please do not makeup issues now which were non issues then. In my opinion these, at worst, were WP:Good faith errors on my part. As you are unfamiliar with the precise facts - because you were not involved - I think it is unfair for you to participate here. Please try to be fair to me. There is a reason this page remains open. I am doing my best to use it for its intended purpose as I understand it to be. If you think otherwise, please inform me specifically before you take such drastic action as you threaten to do in the above. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, User:Cobaltbluetony, you say above that you are "independent", but you in fact are not. It is you who deleted the following item: Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish question (a record of which is on your talk page). And I was responsible for it. It appears to me that this is the matter which may cloud your judgment with respect to me. I therefore ask you not to participate any further in this case. I do not think it is fair for you to take action here because of that matter. I do not think I did anything improper with regard to this item which you deleted. I sincerely believe that this issue was successfully resolved among us. Nevertheless, because you had deleted that Stub, it follows I think that you may not be fair to me. Please reconsider your actions with regards to me regarding this particular incident(s). (I am not as terrible a Wiki Editor as it would appear according to the depiction here.) Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The deletion record of that page is as follows:
  • 18:59, May 13, 2008 Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish question" ‎ (G10: Pure attack page or negative unsourced BLP: inflammatory) (restore)
  • 09:10, May 7, 2008 Cobaltbluetony (talk · contribs) restored "Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish question" ‎ (10 revisions restored: per request)
  • 09:06, May 7, 2008 Cobaltbluetony (talk · contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish question" ‎ (db-reason|should be in Wikipedia namespace, if at all; if moved, trans-namespace redirect should be deleted) (restore)
  • I deleted it because it was in the wrong namespace ({{G6}}), then restored it per request of User:Huon; it was then deleted as attack/inflammatory per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish question and {{G10}} -- but NOT by me.
    While I am quite busy, I am trying to reconstruct a very complex chain of events, so if I've come off inappropriately harsh prematurely, I'll apologize in advance of the possibility of such a discovery -- and invite you to assume good faith on my part. Nevertheless, I remain deeply concerned as to your precise agenda here. This is not an assumption of bad faith, but a concern that your good faith efforts may be inexorably intertwined with a goal that may be fundamentally and diametrically opposed to those of the Wikipedia project. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone seen this movie?

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

Hello Ludvikus, remember me? Did you just get a two year block for turning talk pages into " unreadable monstrosities"? This entire block is outrageously unfair (and I think your last one was also). You should get another uninvolved administrator to review it. Regards, Ostap 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. You are the only one so far to have come to my defense. I have no idea at this moment about how to do what you recommend. Furthermore, it may be impossible to do. But check out that "movie" question by Bootlesthecat. I'm curious what you think about that. I truly do not understand what Bootles-the-cat wanted to accomplish by it? Anyway - do appreciate very much your putting in a good word in my behalf. It appears at the moment that I am one of the most horrible editors Wikipedia ever had. So thanks again, Dear User:Ostap. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe you and I had worked together on Ghetto benches, is that right? What do you think of its current status? Has it improved on the years? Also - I notice that your history pages, etc., have disappeared. What happened? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

THE LIFE AND CHARACTER OF SOCRATES

by Moses Mendelssohn- Here's a beautiful External link for WikiPedians to read, and maybe use productively. [2] --Ludvikus (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh great. A link to a website of the fascist antisemite Lyndon Larouche is now a "beautiful external link." Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Par for the course. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You've learned something from me? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't trust or even bother reading a fascist's translation of Mendelssohn or Cantor. And yes, I learned that you still don't pay attention to what you post. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. But your extreme caution and scrutiny of sources you've learned from me, no? At least so for now, right? Come on. Admit it. It can't heart you now. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. But more important, now that you volunteer that you are anti-Fascist, how do you justify what appears to me to be WP:Forking? How come we were not on the same side:
  1. Furthermore, having unequivocally expressed your personal political position, pray tell, how is it that you seem blind to the fact that James M. McPherson's article (he's President of the American Historical Society) on Revisionist Historians is used as a reference to support ehe legitimacy of Historical Revisionism. Do you really believe that the latter belong to the former? Was Gabriel Kolko a Revisionist Historian, and does that make him into a Historical Revisionist? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
All I learned from you is that I had to spend a ridiculous amount of time scrutinizing with caution everything you post. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
How was I to blame for that? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way, Boodlesthecat, if you want to know why User:El_C Blocked me for two years, let me give you the reason - it has nothing to do with you. It's because I dared to have tampered with his baby, On The Jewish Question - here's by conclusive proof to the real reason for it (I'll supply the Diff's in a moment - a picture is worth 1,000 words):
    (cur) (last)  21:18, 13 May 2008 El C (Talk | contribs) (23,502 bytes)
          (Revert questionable edits again) (undo) 
    (cur) (last)  11:42, 13 May 2008 SmackBot (Talk | contribs) m (23,670 bytes)
          (Date the maintenance tags and general fixes) (undo)
These uncivil sorts of comments are exactly the sort of comments that are going to get your 2 year block extended to indefinite. But your history in failing to heed warnings suggests you won't heed this one either. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • And here's the Diff for it: [3]. That is exactly why he was so angry with me. I was being WP:Bold. I think if you study my editing over time you'll find that my version is the better one. But User:El_C thinks otherwise. So he REVERTS, and then comes to threaten me with being Blocked for two years. I do not think he should have used his power as an Administrator to Block me when the Real reason was that he hated my version of his edited version of said article. That is the simple truth of exactly where he's coming from. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Saying you "dared to tampered with his baby" is quite uncivil, and more than a bit divorced from reality, since User:El_C barely edited that article at all, other than to revert a few of your disruptive edits. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. I would say that that's a rather mild way of paraphrasing a 2-year block, wouldn't you think so if you were much less personally involved in the matter? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. You, of course, would know since you had edited it with me recently. But if you go back in time to the diff of the past like so: [4], you will find that he must have been extremely unhappy with the version he edited and approved in 2006. I then come along and edit it. He is discussed by what I did and uses the occusion to Block me for 2 years because I will not "behave" - meaning leave his & your version alone. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Boodles, tell me, what do you think of my version before he reverted it? [5] --Ludvikus (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
As with all of your edits, it made a mess of the article. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OK. You're entitled to your opinion. But think what I did. I used essentially the {{Main|"name of article}} function/tag. I really thought that El_C would be pleased. You know he's got a picture of the Marxist Che Gevara (Che Guevara) posted on his Talk page. So I thought he would be happy if a made Marxism the Main page. How was I to know that that would piss him off? I'm not a mind reader. The fact is - it is what i had done to the On The Jewish Question article which was the final straw (or next to it) which got him so made that he put a 2 year block on me. That I'm sure of beyond a reasonable doubt. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

For similar terms, see Jewish question (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
Marxism
 
Theoretical works
Philosophy
Critique of political economy
Sociology
History
Aspects
Common variants
Structural
Hegelian
Both
Other variants
People
Journals
Related topics

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

Main article: Jewish question

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

Main article: Antisemitism

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

Main article: Marxism

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

  • I think that such an important article should have each significant sentence foot-noted/referenced. You, Boodle, and El_C, obviously think otherwise. I also think that any interpretation belongs much lower down. First we should identify what the work is. Obviously, you and he think otherwise. I think if you and he objectively study what I had done - as a WP:Bold editing job, you would acknowledge that you both were unfair to me as regards this particular issue - which, as I say, is the immediate cause of El_C feelings that I was disruptive. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • By way of interjection, perhaps this [6] little gift will calm El_C down a bit against me (it's better than your gift to me Boodles). --Ludvikus (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Refer to the history--the admin was not in a content dispute but intervened in an unsuccessful attempt to encourage Ludvikus to cease his incessant disruptive behavior. When Ludvikus refused to desist, after many warning, he was blocked. The only content changes were to edits Ludvikus made which were unanimously agreed by multiple editors to be highly disruptive. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you are one of the users involved with this dispute, can you explain specifically what Ludvikus did to deserve a two year block? I must admit, I can see no justification for it. Ostap 03:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Read the history, it's all there. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And when you do read - very carefully I must say - the history, you will discover the following facts:
  1. A substantial Content dispute at On The Jewish Question with Administrator User:El_C.
  2. A substantial Content dispute at Holocaust denial, On The Jewish Question & related sites with User:Boodlesthecat
  3. A substantial Content dispute at these sites & unrelated sites with WP:Stalker User:Malik Shabazz
Cheers, --Ludvikus (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • One of the problems at Wikipedia is that Administrators from different Pages who had a Content dispute with a Bold user can easily joint forces to make it appear that there is a failure in reaching a consensus - when in fact a mere content dispute occurs with 2 or 3 users and make up New charges which were in fact a non-issue previously.
  1. The reason given for the 2-year Block by User:El_C was WP:Disruption. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. A content dispute had occurred in which Administrator User:Jpgordon Speedily Deleted a Stub on the grounds of WP:Copyright infringement. It was, subsequently, undeleted from it's Speedy deletion state. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Next, out of the blue, an Administrator & Content disputer drops by reinforces the 2 year block by calling Copyright issue a Living persons issue. Look below for the correspondence (Ludvikus (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)):
  • This so-called Disruptiveness is in really what is knoen as the Tyranny of the Majority — by which I mean two against one per Article, and these two's collect & gang up from other pages to give: Consensus = 2 + 2 . . .. It's a highly misleading phenomena at Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC).

Ludvikus (talk · contribs)

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

Thanks. I greatly appreciate you having taken the time to review the matter. Absolutely, I am more than happy (read: relieved) to have you take the administrative lead from now on, since, as you can no doubt gather, it's been an exhausting one! El_C 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I hate to burden you with this matter further, but the user is asking for concise explanations again. Can you provide individual diffs of each individual time the user was warned of behavior or policy on his or any other talk page? I would like the record to be consolidated and clear. At your earliest convenience, of course. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I remember at least one warning that he deleted. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
'I won't even begin to try to collect evidence of how many times he has been warned about everything that is discussed there.' Before I spend hours of my time getting the permanent links, go through his talk page from beginning to end, go through my talk page from beginning to end (there's +20 comments from him starting here), then let me know if you still have questions. This line of argument is not unusual for him: "You're too general. Be specific.";" If you don't agree with me then (1) be specific"; "Please be more specific"; "I request that you be specific"; "without any specifics, is DISRUPTIVE in the extreme." This is what he says when various users explain to him that there are problems with his approach to editing. (ctrl f. "specific"; it's all from his talk page) How is it that all these different editors are out to get him with unsupported generalities? Thanks. El_C 21:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • So Administrator User:Cobaltbluetony drops in from the blue sky and -- with his own content dispute issue with Ludvikus -- joins forces with Adminstrator User:El_C - with the new claim that there was a Living persons issue. Does User:El_C come to Ludvik's defense? No. Does he say that the problem was ONLY Disruption? No. He lets that false claim stay. And Ludvikus remains Blocked for 2 years. Is this fair? No. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • And by the way I do not have an Agenda. If I did it would be to improve the quality of the Administrative action procedures at Wikipedia. One way to do so would be to force Administrators to make a choice: if you edit an article do not act as an administrator with an editor with whom you have or had a Content dispute - recuse yourself. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm also surprised by the red herring of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry introduced by User:Cobaltbluetony. What's that all about? --Ludvikus (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm amazed at how you have inferred more to my statements than I actually said. IF you were to create sockpuppets or further aggravate the situation, I would pursue an indefinite ban. Infer nothing else to that. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      1. Thanks for the clarification. But why smear my reputation any further? Why assume that I would do such a thing?
      2. Furthermore, I note your self-serving selectivity here. How come you give no explanation regarding your allegation as to my publishing the names of Living Persons?
      3. Did you make that up as you went along?
      4. Did you ever express that concern of yours directly to me before? Of course not!
      5. What is the real reason you wish to get on the ban wagon in support of my block for 2 years?
      6. Isn't it a fact that you simply had a Content dispute with me? And now you saw your golden opportunity to put the final nail in the coffin? Now you know that's the truth!
      7. So far none of you mere three (3) fellows seem to have been able to find a single Diff to support your untruthful allegation that I've violated any Wikipedia policy. It was simply a Content Dispute I had with you editors. And from different pages, you've ganged up on me. Consensus does not mean forming gangs - or WP:Stalking to promote your own Agenda - in which you to get others to keep their hands off your privately editor Articles. Isn't that really why I'm Blocked for 2 years? And I know you are a new Administrator. So you wish to be on the good side of Administrator El_C - especially since you are both interested in the Jewish question in which I'm interested as well. But since you find my editing inconsistent with your views, you've dubbed me a disruptor. Let me see you answer that, wonderful new Administrator who decided to Confirm El_C 2-year ban. He (El_C) has been unable to show how I've been disruptive claiming that it would take hours of research. And he refuses to help you out in finding the Diffs - I'm quite certain that you've spent at least a day looking for them. Why haven't you found any Diffs? I'll tell you why - because there aren't any. All you can do is point to my previous difficulties when I was just a novice and didn't know how to handle such predicaments as here. Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User Ludvik's alleged "disruptive agenda"

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
 
Street in Drohobych
 
Drohobych theatre

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

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

  • Thanks, User:Ostap. Good question - what is my Agenda? Obviously it must be a Disruptive one. So what's my "disruptive agenda" - can you please post it here so everyone can understand why it is necessary to Block me for 2 years for it? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I remember now, Ostap, we're connected through Drohobych. I notice it's an article that's terribly neglected. Bruno Schultz hailed from there before the Nazis killed him. It would be good to put that fact in, since he's one of its native sons. The murals he painted there for his Nazi "protector" have wound up in Israel. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Correction - I was misled by that blank space - so I didn't see the rest of the article. Can that be fixed, Ostap? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I will try to fix it. See, this is what the blocking administrators have caused. You could have fixed it yourself, but now we have to wait two years. And there is still no word on what your "agenda" might be... Ostap 23:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll try and give an explanation. I believe that the "agenda" revolves around Ludvikus' relationship to antisemitism and holocaust denial, especially his changes to historical revisionism and historical revisionism (negationism). Here Philip Baird Shearer explains to him the difference between the terms and why we need two articles. To my understanding Ludvikus was familiar with the "falsifiers of history" meaning but doubted that another existed. Ludvikus is given explicit sources about the non-perjorative meaning here. He set off creating various disambiguation pages and proposing mergers. To me, the most absurd of these was Historical revisionism (negationism) (disambiguation) - what was that supposed to disambiguate? Also note that he continued to call for disambiguation after it had been pointed out to him that the articles already contained hatnotes referring to each other and thus were properly disambiguated, see here. So here he's disrupting Wikipedia by knowingly making useless edits, which get promptly reverted.
Next, he started to move pages here and there, apparently not even agreeing with himself where they should belong. For example, he tried to move Historical revisionism (negationism) first to Historical Revisionism (negationism), claiming it to be a proper noun without sources, then to Denial revisionism although at that time several sources referring to the "non-academic" methods as "historical revisionism" had been shown to him. None of these moves were previously discussed on the talk pages, and at least one was repeated after being reverted - again, without any attempt to discuss it. I believe these moves were at least part of the reason for El C to institute a move probation.
Then, Ludvikus found this page and tried to make it into a Wikipedia article under the titles of List of Historical revisionism (revisionist historians) and, once that was deleted as a copyright violation, List of Historical revisionism (revisionists). The second was AfD'd here. During the discussion, Ludvikus moved the article to www.revisionists.com, technically violating the move probation. To me, not even the titles (except the last one) make any sense. I'm not sure whether this was the WP:BLP issue mentioned above, but that website does list quite some living persons, and while many of them do deny the holocaust, not all do, and some aren't even historians at all.
The last actions on this line of "work" was his proposal to merge Historical revisionism (negationism) into Holocaust denial, see the talk page for the proposal and for why it's a bad idea (and how Ludvikus disputes that).
To summarize: Ludvikus has suggested lots of merges, moves and the like, and created several disambiguation pages, despite being told that (and why) it's a bad idea. All his changes along these lines have been reverted by several editors (I counted at least four or five, plus several admins). Obviously, a lack of consensus (or, more precisely, a lack of any support whatsoever) doesn't discourage him, concerning both content (for example whether there are two types of historical revisionism or not) and style (for example how to disambiguate). When he has learned of some tool, be it disambiguation or the {{main}} template, he uses it without caring whether it's appropriate. In effect, he requires other editors to constantly look after him and revert his low-quality edits. Of course he also makes good edits, but I fear the ratio of good to bad isn't impressive, and his tendency to repeat the bad ones after having been told that and why they're bad ideas surely is disruptive.
There are other issues concerning other articles, for example sloppy research concerning the English title of Marx' essay On The Jewish Question, which gets coupled with yet another soon-to-be-reverted move that apparently only intended to link Marx more closely to antisemitism - that's tendentious editing. So it's not just the historical revisionism articles, but a common trend for all Ludvikus' edits. Huon (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"The genre of silence"

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion
 
The Greats: Dr. King and Malcolm X

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

I have no agenda except improving the encyclopedia. As I've explained several times, I never stalked you. I went through your edit history and tried to fix some of your problem edits. (For example, compare your version of Dagobert D. Runes to mine. Likewise, your version of Marx/Engels Collected Works and mine.)
I'm sorry that you haven't learned anything from the two lengthy blocks you had last year. I hope you take the time to read Wikipedia: The Missing Manual during your two-year Wikibreak and come back ready to collaborate on writing encyclopedia articles. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. You're not being forthright for several reasons:
  2. You were one of those who was in content dispute(s) with me previously - when I was blocked in part because of you, correct?.
  3. You now, upon my return, took it upon yourself - to follow me around - to correct every single item I edited.
  4. You were deliberately WP:Stalking me in order to provoke & disrupt me - is that not true? Of course it is!
  5. And now you are completely incorrect when you say that I've not improved. I have improved tremendously, and you of all people knows it. But you will not admit it because you have a vendetta against me - it is you who has the agenda. You must feel that I wronged you last year - and you have been seeking your revenge. Is that not you Agenda? Of course it is!
  6. Instead of generalizing - why don't state here exactly what your beef with me is? It's not enough for you to get on the ban wagon with your "friend(s)" here, particularly User:Boodlesthecat.
  7. If you really wish to improve Wikipedia, explain exactly what you found wrong with my editing that made you follow me to almost every article I wrote (after my return from exile) and made it look like the consensus was against me because you always side with the other side.
  8. Explain exactly - so everyone knows - that it was your calculated effort to WP:Stalk me which made me look like I was disruptive - when it was you who was the main provocature.
  9. Don't you have any faith in the thousands of other Wikipedian who could put me in my place if I was not up to par?
  10. How is it that you decided that you needed to follow me around. Why?
  11. Inform us exactly what your involvement with me previously was when I was blocked in part, because of you, right?
  12. Cheers, Wikipedians. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I had nothing at all to do with your previous blocks. If you remember, before your last block I helped you create Template:The Protocols. As I wrote, my only agenda is improving the encyclopedia. That means: I try to follow WP policies and guidelines and abide by consensus. I don't go around creating disambiguation pages willy-nilly, naming and renaming articles because I can't decide what the right name is, disruptively proposing that articles be renamed, moving articles while the discussion is still on-going, etc. When I draft an article, I do it in my User space and copy it into main space when it's reasonably finished (see the first public version of Aaron Lopez); I don't create one-sentence stubs with copy-and-paste card catalog data and throw a hissy-fit when other editors propose that they be deleted. Would you like me to continue, or are you starting to understand what other editors mean when we say that you are a disruptive editor? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
PS: None of this should be news to you, because other editors and I have written to you about these things on your Talk page during the past two weeks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone seen this movie?

Latest comment: 16 years ago41 comments8 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

Request for another admin opinion

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

Please do. If you can really find someone un-involved. As you can see - my problem is only with these 2 editors. Try your best to get someone who is fair. And please keep your eye out on these pages. They are being now Reverted by Bootles who wants to cover up what he did to me. He wants to cover up that it is he who was the most passionate Disruptors. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, can you show some diffs of what I "reverted" that "cover up" what I "did to you"??? You just incessantly spout the most unmitigated BS all over Wikipedia. Let's see some diffs. You are rapidly appearing to be a pathological liar. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the only administrator I have ever actually communicated with here is User:Alex Bakharev. He is indeed very fair, and I will ask him to look over your situation. Ostap 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be great if he could check things out. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I just asked him to comment on the two years. Ostap 02:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
First, be aware that contacting User:Alex Bakharev may be seen as Forum shopping. That said, I personally can think of no reason to believe that he wouldn't be fair.
However, you may be better served by going through the "normal channels", and transclude:
Template:Unblock
Though be aware that over-use of the template may lead to this talk page being protected.
Note that I'm watching this talk page. If you should need further assistance, please feel free to ask. (Though please note that I am neutral to your content or topic concerns, and intend to stay neutral to them, and so am disinterested in discussion concerning them.) - jc37 03:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
How can I contact anyone? I'm blocked. The suggestion was made by an idependent editor - User:Ostap? -- Ludvikus (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean that you are neutral? Isn't that you:
  • "User:Jc37: Reaffirmation of the 1-month move ban"
How can you be neutral? You made the 1-month move ban Reaffirmation determination. How can you claim to be neutral? You've clearly sided with El_C's determination. That makes you un-neural to my understanding. Please explain how you can think of yourself as "neutral"? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference between content and behavior.
As I said, I'm disinterested in the content discussion.
And I'm still neutral. As an observer, your behavior has been less-than-stellar, to say the least. And in reading over even just your talk page posts, you simply aren't doing yourself any favours.
My concern was, and is, that you just do not appear to be responsible when it comes to moving pages.
And please note that regardless of whether you remain blocked, the move ban stands, and may be extended upon further such issues.
As for your block, I have doubts that you'll convince an adminsistrator that it should be lifted, though you may possibly convince someone to reduce it.
Even that won't be likely, however, unless there is a change in how you interact with other editors, and especially unless you stop attacking other editors.
I'll offer the following links which I would strongly advise any editor to read, though I would guess that others have suggested these already:
To summarise, Use references, rather than your own personal thoughts or feelings. Play nice with others, and presume that others are intending to play nice with you, unless you receive tangible evidence to the contrary.
Two other pages that I think might help you in this case would be: Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial and Wikipedia:Controversial articles.
I'd like to hope that this will help... - jc37 04:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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

If it's felt that he's "served his time", then use of the template is probably approproate. However, I think he and you have illustrated your points and intent without the need for a formal template. So to help you out, I'll add this page to the request for unblocking. The reviewing admin is of course welcome to remove the inclusion upon reviewing the request. - jc37 04:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you make it clear that it is technically a block reduction that is requested, not necessarily an unblock. If he has violated a move ban, then a block is of course justified. But like I said, two years is a very long time for violating a move ban. Ostap 04:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You just did. : ) - jc37 04:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Email from User:Boodlesthecat to Ludvikus

  1. No response to my request. And I'm not responding to the above. I have my own issue which has concerned me in the last few hours:
  2. I have announced above, that User:Boodlesthecat, has commenced Email communication with me, and here is the result:
  3. He claims that he has discovered my identity (who I am).
  4. He further claims that he knows dark secrets about my past.
  5. He further claims the "everyone knows who I am - as well as those dark secrets."
  6. Are you one of those who, according to him, "knows who I am - and my dark secrets"?
  7. Are you qualified to advise me how to handle such a situation?
  8. If you are - what do you recommend I do?
  9. Furthermore, how would you feel if User:Boodlesthecat sent you emails informing you that he new who you are? And had dark secrets about your past? Would you remain calm and composed? Or perhaps you would find yourself extremely agitated & provoked, no?
  10. Before you had concluded that I've "attacked" others, perhaps you might consider rather that it is I who is under attack.
  11. Does Wikipedia only desire to have editors who submit to being bullied? Is that it?
  12. So, according to User:Boodlesthecat, do you know my identity, or is he a lier?
  13. If it is true that you do know my identity - as he implied you do - is the implication here that you will reveal who I am and all the alleged secrets - unless I keep silent and go away for two years? --Ludvikus (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious? Ostap 05:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The first unblock review is here. *** Ludvikus, I specifically instructed you not to modify these last section titles, yet you reverted me. El_C 12:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. You're joking, right? These are the Diffs for which I'm to remain Blocked for 2 years?
  2. How about addressing my concerns above? According to Boodlesthecat's Email to me - you know my identity.
  3. Is that true?
  4. Or is he a Disruptive Lier?
  5. What's your advice & response to that?
Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Those diffs are certainly not the reason for the block, for example because they were made afterwards. I wrote a lengthy treatise above on where you went wrong. Concerning Boodlesthecat's Email, my advice would be to ignore it. If and when Boodlesthecat posts something on Wikipedia, the community can judge it, and somehow I doubt that exposing other editors' "dark secrets" is going to help him. There may be a place to report abuse of Wikipedia's Email feature; I've never looked into that.
On the other hand, if you're concerned about your privacy, you shouldn't have revealed your Email address in the first place. Linking a Wikipedia user account to a real person is rather difficult (on purpose) unless that user actively helps, say, by putting his real name on his user page (and even that information could be wrong, of course). There is a tool called WP:CheckUser that allows to find out a user's IP address, but access to that tool is highly restricted. Huon (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've failed to make my point clear to you. As an example, suppose Boodlesthecat Emailed to you the allegation that I was secretly a "Neo-Nazi." Wouldn't that influence how you work with me here at Wikipedia? According to Boodles (I'm paraphrasing), "Everyone knows that you are a NeoNazi at Wikipedia." If that's the case, I'm no longer effective, and it's a waste of time contributing. I'm not concerned with my privacy. I have nothing that I'm ashamed of. I's my effectiveness at Wikipedia that I'm concerned with. And I think such conduct as I'm describing requires extremely strong action against Boodle. Isn't there a remedy for such a situation? Think of other Wikipedians who can be victimized in such a way? Think of the good of Wikipedia. That's what I'm concerned about as well. Is that not important enough? I've never taken well to bullying, I admit that. But is that what's required of me - always to turn the other cheek? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know what you mean by "reveal." Anyone is more than welcome to reach me by Email. I assume Boodles just followed that standard procedure. Or did he do something unusual? I'm also curious about what you mean by "reveal"? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If Boodlesthecat emailed to me that you were secretly a "Neo-Nazi", I'd find out how to report him for abuse of the e-mail system - he would have violated WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and doing it behind the slander target's back wouldn't make it better in my book.
  • As I said, finding out anything about a Wikipedia user account is quite difficult if not impossible. I assumed that you had mailed Boodles too; that would have given him your e-mail address and better chances at finding out something about you. If you haven't done so, I find it extremely unlikely he knows anything about you that you didn't post yourself. Huon (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That's informative, and I believe you. Thanxs. It answers some of my questions. Anyway, Boodles started sending me Emails and I responded. He than implied that he sent such email to others. I would like to know what - if any - emails he had sent to El_C. I want to know if El_C's impartiality has been affected by any Emails that he may have received from Boodlesthecat. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Huon, for this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide (in the above) - I never knew of it's existence until you came along. From you I can see I could learn things - and so you definitely deserve all the WP:Barnstars awarded you. And I can tell that you are an excellent Wikipedian. I can only hope that others could learn from your example. So far there are two Wikipedians I can have a dialogue with on how to make Wikipedia a better place - Ostap is another. Thanks to the both of you. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ludvikus since you are blocked and unable to report anything at the various administrator notice boards, let me know if you want anything posted or anyone to come look over this new development. Ostap 16:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • By all means. Do what you think is best. I have not been "disruptive." I would hope that others who know my work would be brave enough to step to my defense as you have. Thank you very much, Ostap. I am much moved by you support. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Jpgordon, as you are a high ranking and respected administrator, what do you think of this situation? Ostap 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you should call it to the community's attention on WP:AN/I. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I have posted a little message on the AN/I. Hopefully others will come and give their opinions on this. Ostap
  1. ^ Bruno Bauer: Die Judenfrage (The Jewish Question)Braunschweig 1843
  2. ^ Bruno Bauer: “Die Fähigkeit der heutigen Juden und Christen, frei zu werden″ (“The Capacity of Present-day Jews and Christians to Become Free″), in: Einundzwanzig Bogen aus der Schweiz, edited by Georg Herwegh, Zürich and Winterthur, 1843, pp. 56-71.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludvikus/Archive_5&oldid=1089146268"