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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:17, 15 May 2008 editLudvikus (talk | contribs)21,211 editsm →THE LIFE AND CHARACTER OF SOCRATES: twk← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:03, 18 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 16) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{mbox
{{usertalkheader}}
|type = notice
{{User:Cobaltbluetony/busy}}
|image = ]
==]: Barnstar==
|style = width:52%; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;
Thanks for the barnstar. I didn't realise that I had been doing much reversion on the page. Cheers. ] ] 04:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
|text = <div>
:That's true. ] ] 04:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
'''This {{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|ip
::I hadn't seen that. I check it out later on. ] ] 05:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
|]
|user
}} has been [[Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy|blocked {{#if:|
|indefinitely
}}]] from editing Misplaced Pages{{#if:
|&#x20;for a period of {{{time}}}
}}{{#if:
|&#x20;by {{{by}}}
}}.'''{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk
|{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|historical
|<br /> For the previous version of page, please see <span class="plainlinks"></span>.
}}
}}<br /><small>(see: {{·}} ]{{·}} {{#if:|{{·}} {{{link}}}}}{{#if:|{{·}} {{{link2}}}}}{{#if:|{{·}} {{{link3}}}}})</small>
}}{{#switch:
|ip={{#if:|
|]
}}
|historical=
}}__NOINDEX__<!-- Template:Blocked_user -->


{{archive box | search=yes |auto=long }}
==] (1): Proposed deletion of ]==
{{User:MiszaBot/config
]
|maxarchivesize = 75K
A ] template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ].
|counter = 16
|minthreadsleft = 2
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = User talk:Ludvikus/Archive %(counter)d
}}
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached. <small>Do you want to ] of receiving this notice?</small><!-- Template:PRODWarning --> — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 06:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-----
*'''Strong keep.''' ] (]) 11:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 13:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
==] (2): Proposed deletion of ]==
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
]
<div class="afd-notice">
A ] template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ].
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached. <small>Do you want to ] of receiving this notice?</small><!-- Template:PRODWarning --> — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 06:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-----
*'''Strong keep.''' ] (]) 11:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
== ]: RfD comments ==

Would you please return to the RfD page when you get a minute? I think the comments you made on 5 May might have been accidentally appended to the wrong discussions. (If not, then I must confess that I don't have a clue what you meant.) Thanks. ] <small>]</small> 22:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
: RfD means ]. You made comments in the ] and ] discussions. ] <small>]</small> 22:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

== ]: ANI-notice|User:JPG-GR ==
Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:User:JPG-GR|The discussion can be found under the topic ].}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Yours, --] (]) 07:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks. I'm extremely unfamiliar with this kind of page. Can you please specify exactly what part to go to? Thanks. In the mean time, I'll guess. Please infom me if I'm in the wrong place. Thanks. --] (]) 08:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

{{notice|header=On The Jewish Question -> On the Jewish Question|It has been proposed that ] be renamed and moved to ]. As an editor previously involved in a similar discussion, you are invited to weigh in ]. Thanks. ] (]) 23:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)}}

== ]: Historical revisionism ==

Exactly Ludvikus! Boodles is claiming Jap sex slavery is some undeniable historical fact, but there are plenty of cultural POV assumptions in his argument. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

==] (3): Proposed deletion of ]==
]
A ] template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ].

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached. <small>Do you want to ] of receiving this notice?</small><!-- Template:PRODWarning --> — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 22:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
:Why tell me to improve it? Why don't you do that. My interest now is simply in ''']''' and '''<nowiki>{{otheruses}}</nowiki>'''. --] (]) 23:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

::Please read ] for an explanation of why I've proposed the deletion of the page. I recommend (once again) that you read and understand ] before you continue creating and expanding inappropriate disambiguation pages. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 23:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Try an impersonal tone with me - you'll be far more effective. Also, your condescention does not help either. --] (])

==] (4): AfD nomination of Historical revisionism (disambiguation)==
I have nominated ], an article you created, for ]. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. <small>Do you want to ] of receiving this notice?</small><!-- Template:AFDWarning --> — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 23:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
:Duly noted. --] (]) 02:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] (5): Historical Revisionism vs. Historical revisionism ==

The differentiation you are trying to make is wholly artificial. We already have two articles on the subject, ] and ]. You are attempting to make a third article, on the same topic as the second, using entirely non-standard naming conventions. The disambiguation link at the top of the ] article is all that is required. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:OK. Thanks. Appreciate your advice. --] (]) 01:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
::Please don't rename an article (and an approach to historiography) when consensus is clearly against you. Thank you. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 02:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I have no idea what you're talking about. --] (]) 02:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

==] (1): Article name change==
Please see the guidelines in "]". ] (]) 01:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:Read . You are wrong again. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 02:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
::Please be more specific as to what you want me to read. Since it's on Capitalization may I simply direct you to the following examples as to precedence:
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
:Now what is your point? --] (]) 02:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

::OK, you obviously still didnt read it. You don't get the difference between "American Revolution" and "Historical revisionism"? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

==]: Request to move article ] incomplete==
]
You recently filed a request at ] to move the page ] 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 ]. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

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

# Added '''<nowiki>{{move|NewName}}</nowiki>''' at the top of the ], replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
# Added '''<nowiki>{{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}}</nowiki>''' to the bottom of the ], to automatically create a discussion section there.
# Added '''<nowiki>{{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}}</nowiki>''' to the top of today's section ].

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at ] or contact me on my talk page. - ] (]) 03:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] (6): ] ==
Please stop your ] behavior at ]. Thank you. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 16:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:*Please stop your personal attacks, and inflamatory language. The word "]" is insulting and used against a child.
:*If you believe something is '''disruptive''', then you have to tell me (1) why, and (2) how. --] (]) 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

::The issue of renaming ] was discussed and your suggestion was rejected. Continuing to push the issue by starting a new section is being disruptive. Please stop. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 17:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] (2): Disruption ==
] Please stop your disruptive editing{{#if:|, such as the edit you made to ]}}. If your ] continues, you will be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism3 --> ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

::But it's just me and him latley - you haven't participated. So what consensus are you talking about? --] (]) 18:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
::The editors in involved are:
*<s>]]</s>
*]]
::How does discussion <s>among</s> between us <s>three</s> '''two''' on a Talk page constitute "disruption"? --] (]) 18:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:::You the ] page against the Stop playing games and stop lying. You will be blocked if you don't stop. You should take this seriously if you want to constinue to participate in Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Please do not use the word "lying." You know that's insulting. So if I include you in the counting to determine consensus then we get '''two''' against '''one'''. And your colleague merely {{collapsed}} the discussion page. You did not participate on and before that moment. My Discussion established my point. --] (]) 18:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Malik, Nudve, No. 57, Hertz188, Boodles. FIVE. Stop it. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

You seem like a reasonable individual. Could you lend a hand with this user? First and foremost, his username is the name of a 1930s foreign-sponsored terrorist organization; second he's going around changing everything with a pro-Nationalist China bias. Thank you. -] (]) 18:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

:Well I appreciate that the voice of reason is often drowned out by the numerous voices of chaos and anarchy, but I will be glad to patrol some areas you need a hand in if you can tone Flying Tiger's terrorism just one notch. -] (]) 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] (7): FYI ==

Please see ]. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 18:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

==] (1): Move probation==
Hi. With respect to moves, for the next month please restrict yourself to using the ] procedure (to be closed by an admin) and not moving articles yourself. There's just been too many problems lately, so I think it'll help. Thx in advance for your understanding & cooperation. ] 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:*OK. But it seems you're taking a different <s>Stand on the Administrative Notice Board</s> "stand" on the "administrative notice board". I certainly wish to heed your advice. But please explain to me what exactly you mean by your statements on said board? --] (]) 20:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:*Also, by "next month" do you mean until June 8th? --] (]) 20:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

::I'm not following what you mean by this (oddly capitalized) "taking a different Stand on the Administrative Notice Board." 8th is fine. ] 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

:::What I'm asking is if what you say here is the same as what you said there? That's all. I'm still not familiar with all the WP acronyms, that why I'm asking. --] (]) 20:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Also, are you addressing me in an administrative capacity, or merely as another WP user? --] (]) 20:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Administrative capacity. I told those editors that a Request for comment (] — which was linked) may be the next step. ] 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::So your ruling is that if I do not "move" any pages until after June 8 I'm OK regarding the incident with Shabazz? - that Shabazz can no longer take out an RfC on this dispute? --] (])

::::::What I'm saying is that for moves, use ] for the next month and let the overseeing admin handle it. But an RfC can still be created (it is not an indictment, it is just a request for broader comments) about this or any other issue. ] 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::: Well then, you haven't solved anything. I want all issues resolved now. That's the only fair way to go. You have to deal with everything - and end it all. I'm ready, willing, and able to do that. So please do the rest of your job. Let's end everything now. So far you've only delt with one item. That's incomplete, I think. As you can see, I'm extremely cooperative with you. The other side has not addressed my situation at all. --] (]) 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Sorry, but it is really up to you and the other disputing parties to engage in ] to resolve your other outstanding issues. I'm just attending to the administrative side of it (the questionable moves), with this temporary formula that hopefully will keep the heat down considerably. ] 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::OK. But put that in your summary there. List all the outstanding issue that remain unresolve. Say that there too, not just here. Thanks. --] (]) 21:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::I'm unsure what issues remain unresolved, so I'm unable to list em. ] 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

:Then why don't you just ask the accusers to come foward and clarify their complaint there on the "ANB"? --] (]) 21:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

::If you wish to seek clarifications, feel free to engage those whom these are directed to. ] 21:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:::No. They said what the said. And I said what I said. You stepped in as anadministrator and took action. (1) You restricted me for one month, and (2) you advised me to remove certain names, and I've done so. It is now your duty to finish your jub. I think you should ask them what they want more, and to clarify their complaint. It's up to you I think to make things clear now so I know what's expected of me by Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 21:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry, but I am not obliged to mediate your dispute. If you wish to enter into ], there are volunteers who fill that role. ] 23:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] (1): Hi ==

I've noticed some of your edits have caused messed up display of special characters, and in particular - what web browser are you using? --] (]) 20:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

:Netscape. But please tell me which is best for Misplaced Pages? And thanks a million for your observation!!!! --] (]) 20:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:PS:It does not look like my editing! I just checked! I do not recall working on those 2 particular parts. Are you sure you've got the right Wikipedian? --] (]) 20:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
::Some old versions of netscape can cause problems, but I think there's now a workaround on the server side so you won't have to worry about it. And the actual edits were just changes to the external links section - the rest of the changes were due to the error rather than something you edited. --] (]) 01:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] (8): RfD nomination of ]==
I have nominated {{la|Union of Zionist -Revisionists}} for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ]. Thank you. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] (9): Message ==
Hello. There's no reason why we can't work together, so long as you stop being ] in your editing. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 18:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
*But the so-called "disruption" is caused by your ] of my editing and contributions. Everywhere I go you seem to be right behind my back. Anything I write you either Delete or Revert. If you stop tracking me down there will be no so-called "disruption." --] (]) 18:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

== ]: some support ==

Hi,<br/>
You have recently granted a ''barnstar'' for peace to wikiskeptic...<br/>
I don't know him but I have some problem with him. Would you mind trying reasonning him and explaining him wp is not a battlefield and that and is not very peaceful, whatever our mind on the matter...<br/>
Thank you in advance. ] (]) 18:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:*I'm sorry, but I cannot help you at the moment because I'm in the middle of trying to put an end to the edit war I'm apparently still involved in. But if you help me now, I promise I will help you later. OK?--] (]) 18:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:*I ONLY gave ''']''' a Barnstar because he - of all people - came to my defense. I completely disagree with all those things he has on his Talk page. But he was the only one who defended me against unfair editors who persisted in attemting to get me into an edit war with them. Again, I hold views - from what I see posted there - completely opposite to his. Peace! --] (]) 18:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::Hi,
::Txh for your reply.
::I had already commented the talk page of the article about Marx's book before you answered me.
::Support is not something to bargain. You should not give support to such guys... Whether or not he helped you...
::Regards,
::] (]) 20:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm a strong believer in ] - that's the only thing I know I have in common with ]. By "support" I mean he did a the "right" thing by me - no one had done that. Support does not mean that I defend his position. It just means that he saw that I was being treated unfairly, and he stepped in in my defense. So he deserves my recognition. Notice, however, that I went out of my way to let people know that I hold nothing in common regarding his political, religious, or other views. But when I man clearly does the right thing by you, he deserve acknowledgment. Hasn't Western culture learned anything from that great ], ]? Excuse me, (1) Was Jesus a Jew? And was he great? --] (]) 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::::What forgery? I'm going to assume good faith and assume you're just misreading somethign? Where did I change your comments? -] (]) 21:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::You modified my amendment to the Barnstar I gave you. After I saw what was on your page I modified the Barnstar so people would know that what you believe is not what I believe! --] (]) 21:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Did somebody else change my change to the Barnstar, or did you?--] (]) 21:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::No, this is just a mix-up. You put a Barnstar on my Talk Page and I moved to my user page as many editors do... Take a look on my user page and your original writing is all there--untouched. -] (]) 21:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
#I wrote something on the Barnstar I gave you.
#I the changed it so people would not confuse me with your postings.
#The Barnstar was then changed back to what it was in the beginning.
#Did you do that?
#Or was it someone else? --] (]) 21:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry, it's a bit confusing, maybe because of my inexperience with BarnStars--it's my first. 1. You put the BarnStar on my Talk Page. 2. Noticing that most people have it on their User page, I copied it there. 3. You updated the text on the Barnstar on my User page. 4. The text on the Talk page Barnstar remained unchanged. 5. So nobody changed your text. Sorry for the confusion--maybe proper procedure is for me to delete the Talk page Barnstar when moving it to the User page, I don't know.-] (]) 21:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::OK. Will you take my advice on your use of laguage against other editors? --] (]) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::OK. -] (]) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
#No matter how provoked you are, soldier, you will try your hardest to take a DEFENSIVE stand in your use of Language - which means you will NEVER use language which can be used against you to BAN you from Misplaced Pages. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME Soldier? --] (]) 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::::]. -] (]) 22:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

===] (2): Tread lightly===
It's getting too much. ] 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:I'm beginning to think you need a break from Misplaced Pages for your last antagonistic comments. ] 23:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::When you remove something from my page, please let me know about it. I think I could have handled him better than you. Perhaps it is you who need a break from Misplaced Pages. What is your beef? --] (]) 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::If it's an attack that has the word "lynching" in it, and is indented directly below my comment (as in, to me), then, no, I owe you no explanation. I'm a breath away from blocking you for disruption. ] 23:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::::How could you do that he used it, not me. It's seems you're confusing us two. I think you need the break, not me. Haven't you been paying attention? Haven't you noticed how I've been telling him not to use such language? --] (]) 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::Both you and Wikiskpetic need to stop. He already seemed to, then you come to further inflame the situation: saying I pick sides too quickly (what sides?) and that I speak to him like a child? (your imagination) If you make it a problem for me to deal with disruption, that is disruption. And, yes, I notice you just asked Wikiskeptic to come here to your aid ("solider") , which doesn't inspire confidence. Just stop and go do something else. ] 23:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::If you bother to read his page, you would understand that he was a soldier. And if you paid better attention, you would have realized that the person who calmed him down was me, not you. I expect you to acknowledge the good that I have done in calming the man down. Admit that. --] (]) 23:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Notwithstanding all of that, you told me to step aside to let you deal with it, but I was already attending to it. ] 23:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking about being careful with language, I said I was a breath away from ], not ] you. And no, I am not confusing who said what. But I am disturbed that, after all the lengths I've gone to to explain to Wikiskeptic what the problem was, you had to slip that . For what? How did it help? Trying to antagonize me; trying to get him going again? Had you said nothing and let the thread end, nothing would have happened and this whole unpleasant exchange we're having now would not be taking place. ] 23:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, I know the difference. And I consider you threatening and provoking me. If you Ban me it would constitute an abuse of your discretion. The man came to my defense because he thought you were unfair to me. And you were unfair to me, and now you persist in being unfair to me. Anyone who takes the trouble to look knows how much work I've put in to make Misplaced Pages a better place. And what do you do? You now are threatening me with being banned. You did nothing before in helping me out. You refused to make any effort to talk to the other editors involve. You are unfair to me - and that's what that editor recognized. He used that stupid word - and I explained to him not to do so. Now if you are going to be fair to me what you should do now is award me a Barnstar for good conduct, not threaten me with being "banned." --] (]) 23:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

::You know the difference, but still saying "ban" in the same breath? How can that be? If anything, I have been ''more'' than fair with you, ''more'' than patient with you. Any other admin would have censured long ago, and much more severely than this generous probation. ] 23:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

:Again, I am not your mediator. You made many questionable moves, so you've been placed on a move probation. That's all there is to it. ] 23:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::Perhaps that's true. Why then I owe you a Barnstar. --] (]) 23:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::What are you talking about? ] 23:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm saying that you might very well be the most fair Administrator at Misplaced Pages. In that case I owe you a Barnstar. --] (]) 23:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well, I don't know about that. I try to be fair. ] 00:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Also, you know, or should know, that I've only got a problem with one editor. You should know who I mean. Can't you ask him to get off my back? --] (]) 23:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Who? Malik or Boodle? Again, I don't know what the disputes are about to comment. ] 00:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I need to make this perfectly clear. Even if I attend to the issues posed by your many problematic moves by imposing a (only month-long, ]-only) move probation, that does not make me responsible to deal with your ''other disputes''. You are responsible for your own actions. Thx. ] 00:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
: I'm getting along with Malik. I understand him. He's a passionate Wikipedian and I have leaned how to get along with him. He's even helped me translate Russian text. And Boodle - have you forgotten that he asked for "Mercy" on my behalf on that noticeboard? My problem is with ] Shabazz. He is doing everything in his power to get me in trouble. I think you have influence with him. Just ask him to get off my back. You can solve the problem by talking to him. Can you do that? --] (]) 00:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
::I didn't pick up on any "mercy" pleas to forget. You say you get along fine with Malik and that you are stalked by Shabazz, but it's all one person: '']''. I don't know about having influence with him. I spoke to him for the first time a few minutes ago. ] 00:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:Just look over my page above? Whose name do you see? Shabazz! How come 2 pages are up for deletion by him? Because - for some reason, he's taken upon his shoulders the responsililty of policing me. Isn't that obvious? Do you think he just stunbled on those pages? --] (]) 00:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
::I see a lot of names on this talk page. Which two pages? ] 00:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Shabazz - 2 notices for deletion by him. --] (]) 00:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
#'''Proposed deletion of Marx/Engels Collected Works''' - Shabazz --] (]) 00:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
# '''Proposed deletion of Standard work''' - Shabbaz --] (]) 00:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
# '''Proposed deletion of Historical revisionism (disambiguation)''' - Shabazz --] (]) 00:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
# '''AfD nomination of Historical revisionism (disambiguation)''' Shabazz --] (]) 00:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
# '''Talk:Revisionist Zionism''' -- Shabazz --] (]) 00:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
# '''FYI''' -- Shabazz --] (]) 00:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he noticed some issues with your edits and looked more closely into your contributions. Have you tried to resolve the dispute by speaking to him? ] 00:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:Of course. Got to his talk page - I addressed him as '''Malcom X''' (that's his namesake). Look what a nice message I left him - go look - please. --] (]) 00:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

=== Thanks for your contributions ===
I am interested in what you have to say. I'm trying to find out when scholars/authors 1st started to use the expression ]. --] (]) 09:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
*I am quite amazed by the fact that that the older texts do not use this exact phrase. --] (]) 09:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

::'']'', April 16, 1933, titles an article : ''Split among the Revisionist Zionists''.
::The article start by ''"The differences of opinion between the Revisionist Zionist Executive and their charmain Mr Jabotinksy have now lead to a definite cleavage"''.
::Regards, ] (]) 10:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Excellent. So we have, according to you, ] or ]. But we do not have an article on that. What it entails is quite simply Zionists who - within ] - were ]s. --] (]) 10:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

=== ] ===

Since you are French you might be interested in the above. Do you know that he is one of the world's great living authorities on the ]. But my French is too weak to understand him. It would be wonderful if you could contribute to this Article about this living French scholar. --] (]) 15:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:Hi,
:I know him. I will take a look but I don' have much material concerning him.
:Note I am not a French. I speak French. I am a Belgian. ] (]) 17:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
::Look below for material concerning him (external link --] (]) 17:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)):
==== External links ====
*
*
*
*
-----

== ] (2): AFD ==

I don't see any irregularities with how the AFD is listed. --] (]) 18:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:"Listify" as an outcome at a category deletion discussion means to (usually) delete the category and to create an article that is a list of the articles that would have been in the category. <br> There are many kinds of templates, I don't know what one you're specifically referring to. --] (]) 18:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
::Generally, yes - why do you ask? Do you have a specific question? --] (]) 18:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:{{cquote|Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter.}} --] (]) 19:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] (10): Stalking ==

As you correctly note:

:Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, <u>proper use of an editor's history includes</u> (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or <u>correcting related problems on multiple articles</u> ('''in fact, such practices are recommended''' both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). '''The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful.''' If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter. (emphasis added)

In my opinion, I've been correcting your ] edits. If you think I've been harassing you, please bring it up at ]. Thank you. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 19:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

:But why do you follow me around? There a 1,000 of editors who can put me in my place if I get out of line. Why are you making it appear that you are a special policement appointed to check up on me? Why? It's you that is disrupting me, not the other way around. --] (]) 19:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

::If you would stop disrupting Misplaced Pages, ], (you might want to seriously consider and try to understand why you were put on move probation), no one would have to monitor you. please note, making the kind of false claims you are making against against Malik--for example, going to different places accusing him of Wikistalking--is a form of harassment on ''your'' part. If you continue harassing Malik, I will bring your behavior to the ] board. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

== ]: WikiProject Jewish question ==

I don't have any experience with templates. I could try and create a modified copy of ], but that template seems to be rather complex, for example using several subpages of the project page. I'll repeat the question ] asked on ]: Why create a new WikiProject for something that's already covered by another? I'm no expert on the Jewish question - is there an aspect that wouldn't be considered relevant to Jewish history? Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be much interest in the new WikiProject, and without members, the entire project is a little pointless, isn't it? My suggestion would be to recruit new members first, and to create a fancy template only when you have a couple of dedicated collaborators. ] (]) 20:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you. I'll respond in a moment. --] (]) 21:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
::I have looked at the disambiguation page and the template. A beautiful template, but I'm not sure what precisely I was supposed to see. ] (]) 22:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
::I agree that editors can work on their own (so do I), but I understood a ] to be a central place where editors interested in a certain topic can exchange views, have a to-do list and so on. ''That'' would be pretty useless for a one-man project, wouldn't it? A single editor can create subpages of his user page. A link I just found: ]. ] (]) 22:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] (3): Proposed ] of ] ==
Not sure what you are thinking by cutting and pasting from a Holocaust denial site and making it into a Misplaced Pages page, but it is nominated for ]. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

:Here's my explanation (--] (]) 16:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)):
(cur) (last) 16:19, 11 May 2008 Boodlesthecat (Talk | contribs) (3,086 bytes)
(Nominated for Speedy Deletion--page copied entirely from a Holocaust deniers website) (undo)
*There is no violation of any law, rule, or policy, regarding a statement ], such as a publishing a list of members in an organization in alphabetical order. --] (]) 16:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

*Similarly, quting 2 sentence from another text, in the ], is perfectly legal and proper. --] (]) 16:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

*These are the most notable individuals who expound '''] = ] = ].''' I think the ] should know who they are and what exactly is their "]"? Don't you? Also, I think so far the texts we're editing are exactly what these people say and write. --] (]) 16:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
=== It's been deleted ===
I think the following Speedy Deletion was a mistake (--] (]) 17:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)):
(Deletion log); 16:55 . . Jpgordon (Talk | contribs)
deleted "Talk:List of Historical revisionism (revisionist historians)"
(G8: Orphaned talk page of non-existent or deleted page)
(Deletion log); 16:54 . . Jpgordon (Talk | contribs)
deleted "List of Historical revisionism (revisionist historians)"
(Copyvio; cut-and-paste from www.revisionsists.com)

Judging from the deleting admin's summary, that page was a violation of some website's ]. That's a reason for speedy deletion, see ]. ] (]) 17:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:But that's a mistake. I did three things:
::*(1) Compile an Alphabetized List of people; that cannot possibly be a copyright violation. --] (]) 17:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
::*(2) Quoted 2 sentences giving a word for word the statement for which these people stand. How could that be a copyright violation? People do that all the time - in ] ], for example. --] (]) 17:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
::*(3) I posted -- in good faith - an image which I consider to be a ]. If that's a copyright violation, then the Image should be deleted, and not the Article/List. --] (]) 17:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:::], --] (]) 17:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
::::If it is a direct copyvio, then it cannot be in Misplaced Pages. It is considered a non-negotiable rule, with few exceptions - none of which apply to this case. ] (]) 18:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::You're too general. Be specific. Where's the violation? I cannot make a list of names because someone else has? --] (]) 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:For obvious reasons I can't look at the deleted article, but if it was, as ] said, a cut-and-paste job, it surely was a copyright violation. If, as you wrote on the image page, the article was supposed to be "about the Web site", it may also fail our notability guidelines - I don't think the website itself is notable, see ] and ]. ] (]) 18:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:But the List is Notable. I'm only interest in it - the List. --] (]) 18:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

==]: Redirect of ]==
]Hello, this is a message from ]. A tag has been placed on ], by {{#ifeq:{{{nom}}}|1|]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]),}} another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ] is a redirect to a non-existent page (]). <br><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ], please affix the template <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at ]. Feel free to contact the ] if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click ''' ] (]) 19:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for the barnstar, but while I removed the inappropriate speedy deletion tag (claiming that the page was a redirect to a non-existing page, which it clearly wasn't), I did send it to ], where it will be up for discussion for the next five days. The discussion for the specific article is at ]. Feel free to add a comment there. ] (]) 20:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

== ]: Reaffirmation of the 1-month move ban ==
I just found a talk page that you hadn't moved along with the article (which itself was moved several times), which was ''deleted'' due to being "orphaned".

I note that further up this talk page, EL_C suggests that you not move any pages for at least a month. I wish to reaffirm this.

So that there's no confusion, I'll give it a dealine of June 15 (arbitrarily chosen as the middle of the month).

Just to warn you, if you move any pages in the interim you may be blocked by any admin.

And when June 15th has passed, don't think that you now have a license to freely move pages. You'll certainly be under the watchful eyes of others.

In any case, '''''please''''' be more careful in the future, and give more thought to ] when moving a page once your restriction is over.

Thank you. - ] 03:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:As I've explained, it was a mere "stub" (clearly so tabbed) and "underconstruction" (clearly so tabbed). If you truly wanted to know what happened, you should have consult with Administrator ] who was involved in the deletions - and he knows my work quite well. You, on the other hand, come in here out of the blue. How, and Why? Quite frankly, your tone here, that I'll be watched by "Big Brother" is highly ]. I think it would have been better if you stayed out of it since you are unfamiliar with what happened. Your threatening tone above makes me want to leave Misplaced Pages completely. If you were truly a good administrator, you would have taken the time to look at all the productive work I have already achieved over the years I've been here. (The fact is that I've been involved in a dispute with only 3 or so editors.) But it is this kind of tone which you show above - without a true understandin of what happen - make Misplaced Pages now an extemely unpleasant experience for me. If that is your true aim - well, then, your are succeeding - in encouraging me to leave Misplaced Pages on my own. --] (]) 12:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

*Instead of assuming ], in your ignorance you distort the facts above. Administrator ] also is familiar with the particulars, and I do not think he needs your help. He is quite capable of handling the matter. Why you've decided to come in with your "2-cents" above is one of the things that is wrong with Misplaced Pages. If your aim was to cause ] by upsetting me so much by your above threatening tone under the appearance of a "warning" - as you can see - you have succeeded. The above is extremely ]. You are not doing your job correctly at Misplaced Pages with respect to me. You have only succeeded in disrupting me from working at Misplaced Pages. I have recently received very good, practical advice from Admin. Jpgordon who is completely familiar with the incident. I suggest that you clime back into the hole out of which you just came out of - that's how upset I am by your extremely provocative tone. And I am - with great effort - restraining myself as to what I really want to say to you - as I am constrained by Misplaced Pages policy on no personal attacks - that's how upset I am by your totally insenitivity as regards proper Misplaced Pages decorum. Cheers. --] (]) 12:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


:A couple things:
:First, I welcome further comment by the others you name. And I have no doubt that they also typically welcome comment. That this can happen at any time is one of the great things about the Wikipedian community.
:Second, Your seeming "cries of oppression and disruption" may not be as effective as you might like. Simply, if you are being disruptive '''you''' should cease the action, or others may likely help you to stop. (Which I note is what's apparently been going on.)
:Third, to clarify my "tone":, it's "polite but firm". I welcome you to continue positively contributing to Misplaced Pages, but at the moment, you moving pages is apparently not a positive contribution and may be considered disruptive.
:Fourth, I was and am reaffirming a restriction suggested by another. And being "out-of-the-blue" suggests that I'm neutral to you, and neutral to whatever articles under discussion. Last I checked, that makes me a ]. And I'll be happy to help or to just "stand by", depending on what the other mediators would wish.
:In the meantime, the restriction stands unless or until one of the other admins sees a reason to lift it.
:And finally, please don't view this as a burden. There are a myriad of ways in which you can continue to positively contribute to Misplaced Pages, without the need to rename/move pages. And should such a want or need arise, feel free to request it at ]. - ] 17:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:# I appreciate your change of tone - and I thank you for it very much. --] (])
:# You'll find me very forgiving and extremely capable of compromise. --] (]) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:# Regarding the Move restrictions, Administrator ] explained it to me very well, and I understand it. --] (]) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:# Regarding what you think of as a violation - I suggest you consult with Administrator ] who is a very capable administrator and of long standing who knows me relatively well. He deleted the Page at issue believing it to be a copyright violation under the Speedy Deletion policy. However, subsequently ] arrive on the scene and removed replaced the Tag to a non-speedy deletion. --] (]) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:# I subsequently, or simultaneously, edited it trastically - as WP policy encourages me to do. --] (]) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:# There were some technical problems regarding the disappearance of the Talk page. --] (]) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:# I made a couple of request to fix matters and also tagged the page "cleanup" - hoping to alert a techy to the problem. --~~
:# To be continued ... --] (]) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:# Now as I tried to explain to you, this latest situation involved a Stub I created and Tagged Underconstruction. I realized that I could avoid the Page being pegged as a Copyright infringment by turning it into a page on my source - believing that I could establish the Notabiliy of the source, and subsequently writing the the members or listees were given to us by another - that would not be a Copyright infringement. --] (]) 18:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:# So if I now assume ] regarding your conduct towards me, I expect you to acknowledge that there was no violation on my part of ] prior imposed '''Probation''' - can you do that for me? --] (])
:# If and when this/these issue(s) are resolved between us, I wish to seek you advice and assistance regarding pressing issues of mine. Will you do that for me? --] (]) 18:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

== ]: Orphaned non-free media (Image:Front page-revisionists.jpg)==
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, it is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> ] (]) 12:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

== ]: ] ==

I'm not sure what you mean. It should be obvious that I restored it per the request of ]. Other than that I have no involvement in it. -&nbsp;<font face="Verdana">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></font> 12:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] (4): Incivility, goading and personal attacks ==

] Please see Misplaced Pages's ] and ] policies. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Your tone , including your patently false accusations of ] are way out of line. I suggest you reconsider your posture. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

#Accusing me of "]" is a personal attack by you upon my person. Please stop. ----
#Accusing me of "]ing is a personal attack by you upon my person. Please stop. ----

::Ignore these warnings at your own risk. You are on very thin ice. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I find your threatinging tone in the above disruptive and provocative in the extreme. '''Please Stop! Please Stop! Please Stop! --] (]) 18:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

::::I am not threatening you. What I am doing is supporting the statements and warnings of a number of editors above who have advised you to discontinue your disruptions of Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::There are no other editors. There's only '''you''' and ]. If you don't agree with me then (1) be specific, (2) assume good faith, and (3) seek consensus. Constantly bombarding me with your reckless accusation discredits my reputation on Misplaced Pages and only inflames me with rage. I am not a machine. I am a human being. Treat me with the respect I accord you. If you look carefully, I have never attacked you personally. I only have argued with you on the suject matter, and used descriptions of writing. I have never attacked you personally no matter how much you provoked me. I ask that you do the same with me. The fact that I disagree with you on issues is never meant as an attack on your person. Furthermore, I even went out of my way to acknowledge that you were seeking "mercy" on my behalf regarding ]'s complaint against me. Let's find a way to get along. I am a very forgiving person. And I think you are a nice person too. But I cannot tolerate your repeated personal attacks and threats on me. As you can see I'm spending much time responding to you on this matter, rather than spending my time productively on articles' content. I only have a problem with you, and that other editor whom I shall not name now because he's not directly involved. I know you are passionate about your work here. But so am I. So let's find a way to make peace with one another rather than fight like school children in the school yard. Peace. --] (]) 19:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::], if you are not cognizant of all of the editors above expressing concerns about your editing behaviors and disruptions, PLUS all of the concerns expressed on ALL of the talk pages you hacve disrupted, then I cannot help you. If you want to continue to play the victim, and ignore the countless warnings you have received, as well as the reasons for your current block against page moves, then again, you do so at your own risk. It will not turn out happily for you if you continue to ignore all the advice and warnings you have received. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

== ]: Deletion Appeal ==

The accepted practice in the case of a disputed deletion decision is, first of all, contact the deleting admin and ask him/her to reconsider, or at least to explain, the decision. If this does not produce a satisfactory resolution to the problem, you have the right to post a request on ], or, if all else fails, at ].

It is only fair to point out to you that the admin in question is exceptionally broadly experienced; he has deleted your article on the basis of its being a copyright violation, and if this is indeed the case then there is no chance of the article being restored. If you feel it is not a copyright violation then by all means argue your case. --<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 20:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

==] (11): Proposed deletion of ]==
]
A ] template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ].

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached. <small>Do you want to ] of receiving this notice?</small><!-- Template:PRODWarning --> — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 01:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

:Ludvikus, can you please explain the difference between ] and ]? Thank you. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 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. --] (]) 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. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

::::One page should be a DAB, the other, a list. --] (]) 02:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::The fact is, both pages have the same '''content'''. Is there any reason why there should be two Misplaced Pages articles with the same content? Thank you. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 02:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::No longer so - as you just discribed. --] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages needs two pages with the same content, I'm going to nominate ] at AfD. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 03:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

:*(1) We only need to DAB four (4) things on the JQ: (1) Jq in general, (2) Bauer, (3) Marx, & (texts). --] (]) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
:*(2) The 4th thing is a ]
:*(3) Can you help?: ''' ] → ]''' - The reasons are obvious. --] (]) 03:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

::All Misplaced Pages 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. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 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: '''] → ]'''.
::: (3) PS: the time frame is obviously 1843 - 1948 (from Bauer to Israel)
::: --] (]) 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? — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 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). --] (]) 04:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

== ]: Bold or disruptive ==

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 ] and ]. I suggest that you read through ] and ], and consider if some of your recent behaviour over ] (and related pages and topics (see also ])) 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 ] and working towards a ], 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. --] (]) 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. --] (])
*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. --] (]) 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 ]? 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. --] (]) 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

==] (1): Request to move article ] incomplete==
]
You recently filed a request at ] to move the page ] 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 ]. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

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

# Added '''<nowiki>{{move|NewName}}</nowiki>''' at the top of the ], replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
# Added '''<nowiki>{{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}}</nowiki>''' to the bottom of the ], to automatically create a discussion section there.
# Added '''<nowiki>{{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}}</nowiki>''' to the top of today's section ].

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

==]: Request to move article ] incomplete==
]
You recently filed a request at ] to move the page ] 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 ]. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

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

# Added '''<nowiki>{{move|NewName}}</nowiki>''' at the top of the ], replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
# Added '''<nowiki>{{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}}</nowiki>''' to the bottom of the ], to automatically create a discussion section there.
# Added '''<nowiki>{{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}}</nowiki>''' to the top of today's section ].

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

==]: Request to move article ] incomplete==
]
You recently filed a request at ] to move the page ] 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 ]. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

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

# Added '''<nowiki>{{move|NewName}}</nowiki>''' at the top of the ], replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
# Added '''<nowiki>{{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}}</nowiki>''' to the bottom of the ], to automatically create a discussion section there.
# Added '''<nowiki>{{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}}</nowiki>''' to the top of today's section ].

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

==Enough is enough==
You seem to be editing ], both on talk pages and in articles. ], 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. ] 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.<sup></sup> But the same problems continue to reoccur. I am inclined to block for, say, two years. Does that make sense? ] 22:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
===Block===

] '''You have been ] from editing''' for violating Misplaced Pages policy{{#if:virtue of ], for an extended block duration of ''']'''|, by virtue of ], for an extended block duration of ''']'''}}. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your ''']''' by adding the text <nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from ] instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. <!-- Template:block --> ] 23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-----
{{The Protocols}}
*'''Here - to the right - is just one small sample of my Productive work on Misplaced Pages 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 ] where I am very well known by the dedicated editors there.
*I think the problem is that ] is both an Editor and an Administrator - and I'm not - and he disapproves of my editing of the article: ].
*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 ] 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 ''']''' rather than ]. --] (]) 13:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
*My main problem seems to be with user ] who I believe is ] me for reasons I cannot comprehend.
*With other editors - except one - I have had honest strong differences - but they have been resolved.
*Editor ] 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 ] 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 ] regarding the need to compromise at Misplaced Pages - and I've been listening to him. He even advised ] - 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 ] - 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 Misplaced Pages. And I stand by that record. I have nothing to hide. Any impartial Administrator who wishes to determine if there was '''Disruption''' at Misplaced Pages, and determine its cause, needs now only to carefully scrutinize my Talk page.
:--] (]) 14:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
{{unblock reviewed|1=''?''|decline=reason While I appreciate the succinct summary of your case, your request is declined. <b>] ]</b> 14:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)}}

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 ]; you risk ] 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 ) 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 (]); 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. ] 15:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

== Concurrence ==

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 ] that drives this project, you will be banned from it. -&nbsp;<font face="Verdana">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></font> 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

==To Administrator El_C==
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 ]. 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 ] 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." --] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. -&nbsp;<font face="Verdana">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></font> 16:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

::* Excuse me, the issues were (1) ]s - for which Administrator ] put me on probation until '''June 15, 2008''', and (2) alleged Copyright infringement which were delt with by Administrator ]. Please do not engage in ] proceedings. Please do not makeup issues now which were non issues then. In my opinion these, at worst, were ] 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. --] (]) 16:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

::* With all due respect, ], you say above that you are "independent", but you in fact are not. It is you who deleted the following item: ] (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. --] (]) 18:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

:::*The deletion record of that page is as follows:
::::*18:59, May 13, 2008 {{User|Rschen7754}} deleted "Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Jewish question" ‎ (G10: Pure attack page or negative unsourced BLP: inflammatory) (restore)
::::*09:10, May 7, 2008 {{User|Cobaltbluetony}} restored "Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Jewish question" ‎ (10 revisions restored: per request)
::::*09:06, May 7, 2008 {{User|Cobaltbluetony}} deleted "Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Jewish question" ‎ (db-reason|should be in Misplaced Pages namespace, if at all; if moved, trans-namespace redirect should be deleted) (restore)
:::*I deleted it because it was in the wrong namespace ({{tl|G6}}), then restored it per request of ]; it was then deleted as attack/inflammatory per ] and {{tl|G10}} -- but NOT by me.<br>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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages project. -&nbsp;<font face="Verdana">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></font> 19:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
=== Anyone seen this movie? ===

The . About this seriously disturbed and twisted non-Jewish kid who is obsessed with antisemitism and the Holocaust. Discussion made me think of it for some reason. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-----
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 ] which he made on the Talk page of ]. 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. --] (]) 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, ] 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 Misplaced Pages ever had. So thanks again, Dear ]. --] (]) 19:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
::I believe you and I had worked together on ], 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? --] (]) 19:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
=== '''THE LIFE AND CHARACTER OF SOCRATES''' ===
by ''']'''- Here's a beautiful External link for WikiPedians to read, and maybe use productively. '''''' --] (]) 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." ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

:::*Whaw - that I didn't notice!!! However ... --] (]) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:::*However, Boodles-the-cat, there's of some good in every bad thing. One of my treasures is a Pamphlet in which is published a translation into English of an important publication by ]. Guess who had it translated and published? Yep - ]. (It pleases me to be able to know, however, your stand on him, and on ]. --] (]) 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:::*But the Article seems like a good rendition, or do you think otherwise? --] (]) 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Par for the course. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::You've learned something from me? --] (]) 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. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::#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. --] (]) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::#But more important, now that you volunteer that you are anti-Fascist, how do you justify what appears to me to be ]? How come we were not on the same side:
:::::::*'''] vs. ] --] (]) 22:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::#Furthermore, having unequivocally expressed your personal political position, pray tell, how is it that you seem blind to the fact that ]'s article (he's President of the ]) on ]s is used as a reference to support ehe legitimacy of ]. Do you really believe that the latter belong to the former? Was ''']''' a '''Revisionist Historian, and does that make him into a '''Historical Revisionist'''? --] (]) 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. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::How was I to blame for that? --] (]) 22:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

*By the way, Boodlesthecat, if you want to know why ''']''' '''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, ''']''' - here's by conclusive proof to the real reason for it (I'll supply the Diff's in a moment - a picture is worth 1,000 words):

(cur) (last) 21:18, 13 May 2008 El C (Talk | contribs) (23,502 bytes)
(Revert questionable edits again) (undo)
(cur) (last) 11:42, 13 May 2008 SmackBot (Talk | contribs) m (23,670 bytes)
(Date the maintenance tags and general fixes) (undo)
*It's a shame that Administrators are also Content Editors - that creates a ] - as clearly happened here. He was EXTREMELY pissed that I dared to Edit HIS article on ]. --] (]) 22:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
::::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. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
<!-- === Email ===
Would someone please post here a '''Diff''' regarding Email communication? Thanks. --] (]) 20:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC) -->
**And here's the '''Diff''' for it: . That is exactly why he was so angry with me. I was being ]. I think if you study my editing over time you'll find that my version is the better one. But ] 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. --] (]) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
::* How is it that you call a Defense "Uncivil"? If what I say is true, it is not "Uncivil." --] (]) 22:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:::*And by the way, Boodle, how can you lecture me on Civility? Didn't Administrator ] correct you in your "manners" regarding that word "Ono..." which I shall not repeat? --] (]) 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Saying you "dared to tampered with his baby" is quite uncivil, and more than a bit divorced from reality, since ] barely edited that article at all, other than to revert a few of your disruptive edits. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::#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? --] (]) 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::#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: , 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. --] (]) 23:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::#Boodles, tell me, what do you think of my version before he reverted it? '''''' --] (]) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::As with all of your edits, it made a mess of the article. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::*OK. You're entitled to your opinion. But think what I did. I used essentially the '''<nowiki>{{Main|"name of article}}</nowiki>''' function/tag. I really thought that El_C would be pleased. You know he's got a picture of the Marxist ''']''' ('''])''' posted on his Talk page. So I thought he would be happy if a made ''']''' 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 ] 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 ]. --] (]) 23:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
-----
Here - below — is what I think was ''']'s''' immediate reason for Blocking me for two (2) years - the opening of the ] (--] (]) 23:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)):
-----
{{for|similar terms|Jewish question (disambiguation)}}
{{Marxism}}
'''''On the Jewish Question''''' is a work by ], written in ], and first published in Paris in ] under the ] title '''''Zur Judenfrage''''' in the ''].''

{{Main|Jewish question}}
The essay criticizes two works<ref>Bruno Bauer: ''Die Judenfrage'' (''The Jewish Question'')Braunschweig 1843</ref><sup>,</sup><ref>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 ], Zürich and Winterthur, 1843, pp. 56-71.</ref> regarding the ] in ] by Marx' fellow ], ].Bauer argued that Jews can achieve political emancipation only if they relinquish their particular religious consciousness, since political emancipation requires a ], which he assumes does not leave any "space" for social identities such as ].{{Fact|date=May 2008}} According to Bauer, such religious demands are incompatible with the idea of the "]." True political emancipation, for Bauer, requires the abolition of religion.{{Fact|date=May 2008}}

{{Main|Antisemitism}}
It has been used as a bases for the claim that Marx was an ].

{{Main|Marxism}}
It was one of Marx's first attempts to deal with categories that would later be called the ].{{Fact|date=May 2008}}
-----
*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 ] 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. --] (]) 23:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
*By way of interjection, perhaps this '''''' little gift will calm El_C down a bit against me (it's better than your gift to me Boodles). --] (]) 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? ] 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 ] to cease his incessant disruptive behavior. When ] refused to desist, after many warning, he was blocked. The only content changes were to edits ] made which were unanimously agreed by multiple editors to be highly disruptive. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 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. ] 03:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Read the history, it's all there. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::* And when you do read - very carefully I must say - the history, you will discover the following facts:
:::::# A substantial Content dispute at ''']''' with Administrator '''].
:::::# A substantial Content dispute at ''']''', ''']''' & related sites with ''']'''
:::::# A substantial Content dispute at these sites & unrelated sites with '''] ]'''
::::::Cheers, --] (]) 10:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-----
*One of the problems at Misplaced Pages 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.
#The reason given for the 2-year Block by ] was ]. --] (]) 10:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
#A content dispute had occurred in which Administrator ] Speedily Deleted a Stub on the grounds of ] infringement. It was, subsequently, undeleted from it's Speedy deletion state. --] (]) 10:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
#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 (] (]) 10:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)):

*This so-called Disruptiveness is in really what is knoen as the ''']''' — 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 Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 12:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC).

=== {{user|Ludvikus}} ===

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. -&nbsp;<font face="Verdana">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></font> 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! ] 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 ] 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. -&nbsp;<font face="Verdana">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></font> 17:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I remember at least one warning that . ] <sup>'']''</sup> 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 ]), 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. ] 21:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
-----
*So Administrator ] drops in from the blue sky and -- with his own content dispute issue with Ludvikus -- joins forces with Adminstrator ] - with the new claim that there was a '''Living persons''' issue. Does ] 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. --] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 - ''']''' yourself. --] (]) 11:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
*I'm also surprised by the ] of ] introduced by ]. What's that all about? --] (]) 11:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:03, 18 September 2024

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages.
(see: block log · contributions · current autoblocks)
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Nomination of Misplaced Pages – The Missing Manual for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Misplaced Pages – The Missing Manual is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia – The Missing Manual until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ominateu (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sandstein 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)