User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 6

Latest



 * 1) I would appreciate it if it was pointed out clearly that the current situation I'm in has nothing whatsoever to do with what had occurred at Philosophy about January 2007.
 * 2) My problem appears primarily to be a Content dispute with Administrator User:El_C over On The Jewish Question. He has not yet been able to produce a single WP:Diff showing any Disruption by me; quite the contrary, my conduct has been meticulously restrained under the provocation hurled at me by just 2 editors. I brought that concern to the attention of El_C - but he explicitly refused to help me. And since El_C could not find a single instance of specific disruptive behavior by me he has been reckless in confusing this situation with 2007 by pointing attention to what had occurred in 2007 at philosophy when I took being WP:Bold much too seriously and got in trouble for it. As Jpgordon informed me recently, I need to know how things go on here at Wikipedia. In that regard I have not yet learned completely how to respond effectively to provocation. My version of OTJQ: . El_C's version:.
 * 3) My most serious problem is with User:Boodlesthecat. I've made several contacts with him to make peace - but he refused to budge or respond in kind - I have no idea why he is so adamant about getting along with me except that he extremely disapproves of my editing of any article which he edits. Here's my (attempted) discussion with him on his talk page:.
 * 4) But perhaps my most serious problem is realy with User:Malik Shabazz who has been WP:Stalking me. There is no explanation for that that I can figure out except that he is someone who had a dispute with me in the past - but I only recognize his name. I suspect this predicament I would not be in had it not been for the WP:Stalking by him. Here's my attemted discussion with him:
 * 5) Had El-C been more communicative with me - and specific - perhaps the situation would have evolved otherwise. But he insisted in expressing himself in metaphors, and authoritarian threats, without directing any direction to specifics. If you look at his "threats" to Block me, you'll find that they are just that. It is unclear what exact rules I'm not following. That is not the case with User:Jpgordon, or User:Huon, who are much more exact in explaining what is required.
 * 6) A good counterexample is that advice above: the gendre of silence. That's not User:El_C - but his admonishments appear of the same order - one is left in limbo in any attempt at comprehending exactly what it is that he wants - and just saying, "don't be disruptive" is not helpful when Wikipedia says be WP:Bold.
 * 7) Unfortunately, at Wikipedia, the Prosecution does not have to prove you guilty, but rather the Defensive must prove itself innocent. I really think things are here quite the same as Franz Kafka's The Trial.
 * 8) So in my defense here is my Diff regarding my successful contributions without any Disruption:.
 * 9) On the other hand, in violation of the principle of double jeopardy, User:El_C's only Diff against me consists of a "report" regarding my alleged "Disruption" in January 2007 for which I have already served my "sentence" so to speak: User:FT2/Evidence pages/Philosophy.
 * 10) My learning gets better, but the punishments gets more severe each time:.
 * 11) Again - you will not find a single Diff showing I have been disruptive which requires a 2-year Block. It would be nice if User:El_C stepped forward and admitted that there is absolutely no comparison of the current situation to that that existed in 2007 - or at any other time. There's just no grounds for the claim that I've been disruptive.
 * 12) In fact, there has not been disruption caused solely by me for which User:El_C is justified in blocking me for 2 years.
 * 13) It just occurred to me that a good way to avoid Edit Wars is to encourage new editors who arrive at a page as Novices to identify first those other editors who have been particularly dedicated to the page (look at the history) - that way one can uderstand the issues to be addressed and the editors whose dedication must be peacefully confronted. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (negationism)
Here's an example, also, of Truth by Majority Rule currently at Wikipedia:
 * 1) "The Future of a Negation: Reflections on the Question of Genocide. (Review) (book review) Kornberg, Jacques 
 * 2) "The Future of a Negation: Reflections on the Question of Genocide,
 * 3) "by Alain Finkielkraut, translated by Mary Byrd Kelly. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998) 146 pp. $29.95.
 * 4) "This is a translation of Finkielkraut's analysis of Holocaust denial in France, published in 1982.
 * 5) "Events have by no means outpaced Finkielkraut's brilliant diagnosis.
 * 6) "The "negation" in the title is the English rendition of le negationnisme, the French equivalent for Holocaust denial.
 * 7) "Both terms--le negationnisme and denial--are meant to divest the self-styled claims of its advocates, wolves ...
 * This reference (used in the page above) justifies my Requested Move:
 * Historical revisionism (negationism) → Historical denial
 * I can only guess that Administrator User:El_C must have considered that to be a Disruptive request. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * More specifically, those who hold the "consensus" and wish me Blocked from Wikipedia are the editors who deny that Negationism is the French equivalent of Holocaust denial, and not, as they say, Historical revisionism. If there is an Agenda here - it certainly is not mine: . --Ludvikus (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS(1): That's in their own Footnote #2 of Historical revisionism. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS(2): User:El_C - do you think this is conclusive proof for you to Revert back to my Reversion? Will you please let me know if at least you are giving this matter some thought (or that you understand me)? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS(3): Here's who doing what & when, there, to date:

# (cur) (last) 23:07, 13 May 2008 El C (Talk | contribs) m (54,695 bytes) (Reverted edits by Ludvikus (talk) to last version by Paul foord) (undo) # (cur) (last) 14:45, 13 May 2008 Ludvikus (Talk | contribs) (54,726 bytes) (RVT - the lat step WAS a typo - look at the Whole history) (undo) # (cur) (last) 14:19, 13 May 2008 Paul foord (Talk | contribs) (54,695 bytes) (rvt - pls note            Holocaust denial             is not a typo - Undid revision 212106280 by Ludvikus (talk)) (undo) # (cur) (last) 13:42, 13 May 2008 Ludvikus (Talk | contribs) m (54,726 bytes) (typo) (undo)
 * Does everyone now understand what's been going on at Historical revisionism (negationism)?
 * User:El_C - is this what you think constitutes "Disruption" for which I should be Blocked for 2-years?
 * I cannot read your mind - and you've repeatedly refused to be Specific when I asked you to be so. Please reply. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you had read the arguments I presented to you or if you had read the article then you would have understood that illegitimate revisionism takes place in other areas of history not just Holocaust denial. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you comment. I appreciate that. But I would like you to address my specific question please. The first 2 footnotes say that "Negationism" is French for Holocaust denial. So how do you account for the WP:Forking?

Theatre of the Absurd
This is just like Theatre of the Absurd. I'm increasingly drawn to the conclusion that the user treats Wikipedia as a game of argumentation (seeing how far he can go), to the exhaustion of everyone else. (And no I received no email communication at the time of or before the block, so I'm not influenced by anything other than his on-wiki conduct, which is exactly the same as the conduct which saw him blocked for six months and two months in 2007.) The contradictions cry out loud. The argument that I have not been communicating with him is false, outright. On the contrary. Take my talk page as an example: Ludvikus posts section after section but never follows up any of them (here's a list of most of em):


 * 1) Ludvikus writes his first (and somewhat aggressive) comment on my talk page, I respond — no followup;
 * 2) Again, no followup;
 * 3) Again, no followup;
 * 4) Again, no followup;
 * 5) Implies bad faith on my part for no apparent reason — I ask what's that about, and again, no followup;
 * 6) Again, no followup;
 * 7) Complains he feels like he has been "Talking to the Wall" (i.e. myself being uncommunicative) —I explain that there has been no followup on his part and that I have replied to everything he has written to me— and again, there's no followup to that, either (!);
 * 8) Again, no followup;
 * 9) Again, no followup;
 * 10) Again, no followup;
 * 11) Again, no followup;
 * 12) Again, no followup;
 * 13) Copy and pastes another user's comment without attribution — again, no followup;
 * 14) Again, no followup;
 * 15) Violates move probation, and again, no followup.

Everywhere else, it has been the same reflective (and reflexive) criticism on his part, directed at everyone else, while talk page after talk page descends into chaos; while article after article suffer low-quality, disjointed additions, and scores of unconventional (often mistyped) moves. It all speaks of careless and contempt to everyone around him. And yet, he still claims he is totally innocent and everyone else is out to get him. I cannot figure out if setting himself up for martyrdom (see also image above) was originally planned, but definitely, in my mind, it looks very unseemly. If anything, the block was warranted a week or two before it was issued. I doubt most admins would have waited nearly as long. El_C 01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Theatre of the Absurd (Part II)
I've rechecked your "script" above and discovered that you answered many of my question on May 1, 2008, on your Home page - but you never let me know you had done that. Therefore, I had no way of knowing that. Remember that you're required to Assume Good Faith. Furthermore, why am I required to "admit a mistake" when the mistake was clearly yours? --Ludvikus (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Take some responsibility for your own actions, you've been here since August 2006 and are no longer a newcomer. When you submit tens of queries (often in succession) to someone's talk page, the least you can do is check —between submission of yet another section— to see if the user in question responded in their next edit to the page. You already knew that I respond to comments on my talk page (as you yourself do), because early on I told you I prefer keeping conversations unfragmented, and you already had seen me respond there. El_C 05:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

-
 * El_C 1st look at Boodlesthecat's actions as we speek: . --Ludvikus (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But now respond to what we're about at Wikipedia - which is to build a great encyclopedia. Do you understand that I'm presenting conclusive scholarly evidence in the above that Negationism = Holocaust denial? Stop being defensive and let's deal with my editing which you must find "disruptive." Don't you think I'm raising an extremely more important issue now than the squabble between you and me? If so, address my question here and now, please - you've reverted my edit - that must have pissed you off. I'm now trying to show that you probably have made a Good Faith error. OK? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Unresponsive and divertive as always. Therefore, I have nothing further to add at this time. El_C 02:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Responsive: You have not communicated with me on the issue of the Disruption caused by Boodles & Malik Shabazz. That is a fact. What you own "evidence" above shows is that you were Heavily involved in Content conflicts with me - but where are the Diff's showing any Disruption. You cannot show that because I did not engage in Disruption. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My own evidence above shows that, as an admin, I was unable to reach you. Because you never followed up your own communiques. El_C 02:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Does that really deserve a two year block? Ostap 02:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be possible that I overlooked you answer on your talk page - expecting answers on mine. But also, you seem not to have understood me. But most of all, you refused to help me with Boodles & Malik. Had you done so, I would not have been in this mess. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You think? Not only overlooked it +15 times, but argued you were talking to the walls, also overlooking a response to that(!). El_C 02:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Talking to the wall" is conclusive proof that I was unable to reach your mind no matter how much I talked to you. It seems to me that you were much more interested in disciplining me than dealing with Boodles. Why is Boodles allowed to get away with so much with you, but when I use the expression "pissed off" you object? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm done here. El_C 02:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you deal with what Wikipedia is all about: Historical revisionism (negationism) → Historical denial. The fact is, you are not dealing in Good Faith with me. You are in a Content dispute with me and you are unfairly using your authority as an Administrator to get your way. Isn't that why you refuse to deal with the Move proposal which you've Reverted? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Arguing that "Wikipedia is all about Historical revisionism (negationism) → Historical denial" is your own view, which I (and I suspect nearly everyone else) do not share, or entirely comprehend, for that matter. Again, I was no involved in those move or merge discussions. Yes, I did, after blocking you, reverted your merge request, since you were the only supporting it and seeing as the aforementioned move already failed. El_C 06:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI
You are being discussed here. Ostap 02:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ostap. Could you discuss with me one of my proposed Moves which pissed El_C off? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please tone down your language, this is not a free-for-all. El_C 02:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (negationism) → Holocaust denial

 * OK, what about this: Historical revisionism (negationism) → Holocaust denial --Ludvikus (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What about it? How did that "piss me off"? I wasn't involved at all, though I see that as usual, everyone else opposed your request. El_C 02:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're clearly mistaken. There is no greater "involvement" than a Reversion. And you reverted me! But its interesting that all you care about is how many disagreed with me. Isn't it also important to consider that the majority is wrong - especially on such an important article? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, Ostap, will you please discuss with me the proposed Move? I think I can show everybody that I'm an excellent Wikipedian. But not if I cannot talk to anyone. So will you please give me a chance to show that there is extremely strong evidence for the move I had proposed? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Since Ostap is not around, will anyone there please listen to my observation that the Move I've proposed is justified by the article's own Footnote 2  which explicitly says that "negationism" is the French for "holocaust denial." Yet the Article is named "Historical revisionism (negationism)." The problem I have is that there's no effective way to get User:El_C to listen. I'm again in the predicament of "talking to the wall" with him. And saying more, he tells me, is too much. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the direct quote: The "negation" in the title is the English rendition of le negationnisme, the French equivalent for Holocaust denial. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooops, sorry about that. But that really isn't my area of work on wikipedia. However, I still think the block should be shortened. I've tried all I can, I really don't know what else to do? Ostap 03:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's OK, you did a great job. Oh - why don't you tell them how well you communicate with me (if you think so). I'm being depicted as somehow not able to do that. So since you have experience with me, why don't just express how you feel working with me. OK? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never had problems communicating with you (and we argued quite a while about the "the" before Ukraine, remember?). I did notice you use that horizontal line in your posts.  Slightly annoying :) By the way, you might be interested in User:Alex Bakharev's opinion of working with you here: . Ostap 03:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I remember now. You taught me that the Ukraine passed a law dropping "the" from its name (it still sounds a bit like a foreignism) but I remember that quite well. But why done you make your observation of me on that Admin. Notice Board? Are you not allowed to do that? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone out there who will discuss with me the proposed Move? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, that was not a proposed move, but a proposed merger. Reading the historical revisionism (negationism) article gives us sentences such as: "Examples of historical revisionism (negationism) include: Japan's comfort women, Holocaust denial and Soviet history." Or, if you prefer, take a look at the website you found, here. That website obviously is no reliable source, but I think we can believe it insofar as someone whose interest in "history" has nothing whatsoever to do with the holocaust can still attend conferences by the Institute for Historical Review (an organization that, according to our article, definitely is no legitimate academic institute) as a speaker. So obviously historical revisionism as used by the "(negationism)" article, as an attempt of falsification of history, is a more general phenomenon than just holocaust denial. The article provides even more examples. Those opposing the merger have told you so. If the merge proposal had been successful, what would you have done with those examples? Remove them completely? Still include them in the Holocaust denial article? It seems extremely counterintuitive to merge something on Stalin's distortions of Soviet history into an article called "Holocaust denial". Huon (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I didn't notice that before. First, the situation is very complex, and confused at the moment there. I will not go into that at the moment.


 * 1) What I wish you to consider now is a very narrow issue.
 * 2) Consider only Footnote 2 of the article.
 * 3) If you trace it through, you will find that Negationism is the French equivalent of Holocaust denial.
 * 4) So the article is about "Holocaust denial."
 * 5) So there's WP:Forking.
 * 6) Therefore, the article must be Merged.
 * PS1: Perhaps you are unaware that there is also another article called Historical revisionism?
 * PS2: I did not "find" said article . You must have me confused with someone else. I have not even looked at it until this moment.
 * PS3: Even Footnote 1 has this: " The Future of a Negation is a crucial statement on the Holocaust -- and on Holocaust denial -- from Alain Finkielkraut, one of the most acclaimed and influential intellectuals in contemporary Europe."
 * QED: Historical revisionism (negationism) → Holocaust denial
 * Am I understood? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're understood perfectly, but you're not right. Concerning PS2: You may not have looked at that specific page, but you certainly found http://www.revisionists.com/ and tried to turn it into an article - twice. That page is just the biography of one of those "revisionists". Apparently you didn't even read what people were on that list.
 * Now on to the article name: As the content of the article tells us, it's not about holocaust denial - or at least, not solely about holocaust denial. Sections such as "Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" or "Soviet and Russian history" should make that perfectly clear. I am well aware of the historical revisionism article. As you've been told before (say, here), the term "historical revisionism" has two meanings. On the one hand, discussed in the main historical revisionism article, it's a legitimate part of the academic field of history. On the other hand, the falsifiers of history discussed in historical revisionism (negationism) also use the same label, partly to hide their agenda. The Institute for Historical Review is one such institution. Yes, Holocaust deniers are prominent among this brand of practicioners of "historical revisionism", but they're by a long shot not the only ones. And as you have been told before, the name "revisionist historian" stuck to these people and is used by reliable sources such as major newspapers to describe them. It is by far the most common description: Google gives roughly 9K hits for "historical revisionism" and "Irving" (I added Irving to avoid most of the hits for legitimate historical revisionism), but only 1,600 for "negationism" and "Irving", 178 for "historical denial" and "Irving". So the page name should reflect the most common name. But we can't have two articles named "historical revisionism", so one or the other (or both) need a qualifier. Now one can argue the best qualifier. Once the (negationism) article was named "historical revisionism (political)", but for some reason that name was thought inappropriate. Since negationism is a commonly-used name for (a major part of) the movement, it was chosen as a qualifier. Maybe (denial) would be better, given that we have sources (see this paragraph) which call the entire falsifier genre "denial" (note that they don't call it "historical denial", and note that they speak about denial in general and mention examples beside the Holocaust), while "negationism" indeed seems to refer to a part only.
 * Does this suffice as an explanation why the article is named the way it is, why it's not just about Holocaust denial and why none of your various merger and move proposals wold have meant an improvement? Huon (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Protocols of Zion

 * In response to User:El_C's personal attack on my scholarship & my alleged inability to work with others here's proof to the contrary: --Ludvikus (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Contrary to El_C's allegations, what we have currently is a Content dispute between a mere Editor and and Administrator working on the same Articles. That creates a conflict of interests. One solution would be for Administrators not to exercise their powers as such over mere editors with whom they happen to be in disputes with regard to the same articles. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How many times will you to repeat that? How many times will you link (or fail to link) to my userpage? It comes across as attrition. El_C 05:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here on my talk page - until there is some acknowledgment that (1) I'm understood, (2) and/or there's disagreement on the point at issue. Regarding the link, it's just a nice way of showing whom I'm talking about - or to whom. And it'd not "shouting". Also, it makes it easier for Wikipedians to communicate - everyone becomes merely a click away. It's my own invention & no one else has object. I'm sorry you are pained by all this. However, I ask you to teach me - if you can - what Wikipedia rule I'm violating - or is it merely a matter of your personal distastes? I do wish to be able to accommodate you, but could you please meet me half way? --Ludvikus (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship??
Ludvikus, I, personally enjoyed the work with you on a few Russian nationalists bios. I think that work was productive and important. I would rather continue to work with you.

On the other hand you seems to managed to piss off quite a number of editors. I know some of them, they are reasonable people and they are not a member of single cabal I am aware off. They all seem to believe that Wikipdia developemnt would be better of without your contributions.

I am thinking how to make a compromise between those points of view.

One of the ideas is to have some sort of Mentorship. Somebody would monitor your edits. If the edits do not look helpful he or she would advise you to stop. If you do not stop you will be blocked. If you argue a valid point but argue poorly the mentor would argue your point on your behalf ten you would do something else. If mentor's advises do not prevent disruption he or she would loose his good name but you will be blocked. It is intimidating but probably better than a long block. The success is obviously depends on some trust between you and the mentor as well as between the community and the mentor.

I could volunteer myself as a mentor but if you could find somebody else it will be good, I am already failing my commitments to wikipedia. It maybe more than a single person. It would be better some of them have the block button. I think if we could arrange a mentorship it might be a reason to lift the block.

Another idea would be to work by proxy. If you think of a good edit to make and somebody shares your opinion then he/she could make the actual edit crediting you in the edit summary. Obviously, nobody would do unhelpful or disruptive edits on your behalf. If you think to work that way you can suggest edits on your talk page or by Email and somebody would do it for you Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you wish to unblock, you need to speak to me first. Because I'm not inclined to have Ludvikus unblocked so long as he maintains blame on everyone else and absolute innocence toward himself. So long as there's no progress on that front, I object to an immediate unblock. El_C 06:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * El, no I do not want to unblock without consulting you first, I just want to be sure that Ludvicus is interested in the proposal before bothering other people. Ludvikus, there are concerns that I am along would not be able to monitor you close enough, so if you could propose another mentor or if somebody wish to help me with this please propose yourself. The candidates should be approved by both Ludvikus and EL_C Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Alex, if you look through the voluminous history of this case, including above, you will see that a number of editors and admins made extraordinary efforts to advise and monitor and instruct Ludvikus while he rcklessly disrupted numerous articles and talk pages. Ludvikus consistently abused, attacked, vilified and outright lied about each and every one of these editors and admins, and considers anyone who does not agree 100% with his odd views as an enemy. He manipulates any editor he thinks can be used on his behalf, as he now will manipulate you below with hollow promises and praise for your impartiality and fairness, and will play you against admins such as El_C who he will make out as his persecutors. And you will be disappointed. Boodlesthecat Meow? 12:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent Proposal. I Love the idea. I accept it 100%. And I nominate you, User:Alex Bakharev to be my WP:Mentor. (1) I know you. (2) I trust you. (3) I don't know anyone else as well with whom I have also worked on Content. (4) I appreciate very much that you stepped forward when my reputation is so poor. (5) I can guarantee (99.99% - hey, life is uncertain - just joking) that with you as my Mentor there will be no problem. (6) My second choice is User:Jpgordon, but I did not work with him on content, but I've grown to respect his advice even when I do not agree. (7) Thanks for the Mentorship proposal, Jp. (8) Thank you very much to both of you. Much appreciated. (9) And I wish you both a very nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * PS(1): El_C - I'm not into "Blame." That's not my way. I am ready to make peace with you - immediately. Right now. My purpose here is to write great articles for Wikipedia & to make Wikipedia a better place for everybody. So if you forgive me I certainly forgive you. I do not want to cause you any pain, El_C. Also, I have no problems with any other users but 2 (you know who). If you could "mentor" me on that situation, would be great. But with a Mentor, that may not be necessary any longer. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * PS(2): Also, El_C, I would appreciate it if you looked at my contributions to Wikipedia I've Archived here . It seems to me that one's reputation at getting along takes priority over actual Content contributions. That is a source of great disappointment to me. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * PS(3): If you look above, El_C (no link, as per your requst) I'm having a concise - not verbose - conversation with User Huon about the topic you find tedious or atticious with me. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that if we go with mentorship, then Ludvikus should refrain from editing, (including merging or moving) any article that Ludvikus has edited since the 17:24, 6 April 2008 -- which is when Ludvikus started to edit in earnest after his/her last block. This should enable Ludvikus to drink from a well that has not been poisoned because without such an agreement it would be very hard for a mentor to be able to do what a mentor is supposed to do. As there are millions of articles to choose from, this should not be too onerous a restriction. BTW I also agree that El_C should be consulted before the block is removed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not think that a Content dispute with you on those articles is grounds for such a restriction. I must command you, however, for your civility. I have no recollection of any uncivil disagreement with you. So I think that we can get along very well.
 * Furthermore, since this is my talk page, why don't we discuss the Content dispute which I believe is the reason you desire me not to work on the articles we were both on. I maintain the the two footnotes in the Negationism article actually state that it and Holocaust denial are one and the same. Accordingly, there is WP:Forking. The articles must be merged. Are you opposed to that? If so, why? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But as an after-thought I find myself provoked by what I see as an insult to me by you. Why not have a much smaller list - why don't you edit any of those millions, and leave me the ones (how many - 3 or 4?) articles which you were in the Content dispute with me on? I apologize to the community - I just cannot resist - yet - such provocation. Perhaps, Jpgordon, you could mentor me on how to handle such condescension as you are an expert on proper Wikipedia Manners. This person is one of those who had/has a Content dispute with me, and I find the suggesion he makes now extremely offensive and provokative. I do not know yet how to handle that - except that I will ignore it on a Talk page of an Article. However, this person is insulting me here now on my talk page. Can I get some "mentoring" on how to handle such a confrontation? Thanx. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that you still seem to think you're not at fault for any of this, no, I would not for a moment consider mentoring you; I don't see any indication that you're able to learn from your errors. The first thing you have to do is learn to shut the hell up at the right time. Your blatant refusal to be quiet when User:Jc37 tried to assist you above is basically the last straw, as far as I'm concerned; I find you a tendentious editor and, frankly, an intractable case. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Ludvikus when I wrote the above I hurried to save it, as I was being harassed simultaneously by several people in the real world, I had included in the draft suggestion that you "should refrain from editing, (including merging or moving) any article that Ludvikus has edited since the 17:24, 6 April 2008 -- which is when Ludvikus started to edit in earnest after his/her last block -- until such time as the mentors consider it appropriate that Ludvikus can start to edit those articles again ". It got lost in an edit and I did not notice that I had missed it out when I saved it. I do not think it fair on any person who was to act as a mentor for you that you should edit those articles where you have recently been in dispute.


 * If you had read what I wrote above and simply suggested that "I think an indefinite edit ban on those articles is unreasonable as they are subjects where I have a lot to offer.", I am sure that other editors would have agreed with you -- I would have as it was a mistake that I had missed it out of my original suggestion -- and a compromise could be reached. But as you can see from jpgordon's reaction, you made no friends by replying as you did.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanxs Philip. I could not find Huon's comments. I appreciate your directing me to then, and I've read them. Let's assume that you are correct - that there's more to Negationism than just Holocause denial. But the justification for that seems to me like mostly WP:Originl research, mostly with the aid of Google hit ment. WHAtioot understand is your to heed your own 2 footnotes 1 and 2. Even if what you say is true - your own footnotes to the article say that Negationism is Holocaust denial. It's really that simple. I am not committed to denying the difference - but the article's footnotes currently explicitly say otherwise. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the so-called disruption?
It comes - as I've claimed all along - from User:Boodlesthecat. Here is how he describes me - above - to Alex. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Ludvikus consistently abused, attacked, vilified and outright lied about each and every one of these editors and admins, and considers anyone who does not agree 100% with his odd views as an enemy. He manipulates any editor he thinks can be used on his behalf, as he now will manipulate you below with hollow promises and praise for your impartiality and fairness, and will play you against admins such as El_C who he will make out as his persecutors."


 * 1) Alex, didn't you say how much you enjoyed working with me? Did I "manipulate" you?
 * 2) I do not understand how such personal attacks - psychological analyses - are permitted at Wikipedia. Is no one going to admonish Bootles for such clear violation of Wikipedia decorum? How is it that he is permitted to get away with such remarks?
 * 3) I repeat. The cause of the so-called disruption is clearly him and not me.
 * 4) I do not understand that the Community fails to see that!
 * 5) How do you expect a minority - a maverick like myself - to have 100% trust, if such disruption is tolerated - while it is I who is admonished?
 * 6) Although I have accepted the idea of mentorship, I think the better option would be to put Boodles in his place.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS(1): Will any administrator out there please "mentor" me on how I am to deal with such a remark as Boodles has made above? Please, I truly wish to learn that! What is the appropriate response to that? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS(2): I guess the question is now - is there a mentor who could handle such a clash between 2 editors like myself and Boodles. Is there such a mentor who could solve this problem? I'm completely at a loss at how to make peace with Boodles. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

'"The first thing you have to do is learn to shut the hell up at the right time."

 * Unfortunately, that came after the fact. I wish I was advised of that before. Nevertheless - I hope it's not too late - I'm going to heed it now.
 * I'm off to "grind my ax" elsewhere. Exercise another endeavor. And I'm going to "shut the hell up." --Ludvikus (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Project differentiation (WP:JH vs. WP:JEW) - good question!
Greetings, Ludvikus! I've reiterated (on the same Project Talk page) your earlier query on this topic, and you'll see I've left you a note there too. My objective: to get things moving along productive channels. Take a look at my User page for topics of possible mutual interest. For now, just thought you'd like to know you're not alone "here" :-) -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's absolutely wonderful!!!. But are you aware that I am Blocked for 2 years at the moment? I'm certainly interested in what you are doing. I will study that later. But are you aware that I am only able to use this Talk page at the moment? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hadn't been aware of your blocked state; thanks for mentioning it though I'm not sure what conclusions and consequences this might entail. I'll try to be objective and give you the benefit of a tabula rasa fresh start in our discourse :-) Deborahjay (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Queries: How come Holocaust denial is not on your list? Also, what about Negationism? And how about Ghetto benches? And also the following:


 * 1) Jewish question
 * 2) The Jewish Question
 * 3) On the Jewish Question
 * 4) Protocols of Zion
 * Do any of these interest you? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope this brief and comprehensive answer will do: I'm a professional Holocaust archivist specialing in the history of Jewish resistance, DPs, and extensive matter about the attempted extermination of European Jewry. My to-do list revolves around those pages, including library research plus translation from (and sometimes into) Hebrew (interwiki). As a naturalized Israeli, I work ad lib on relevant pages. My wikiwork and other disposable-time activities are constrained by personal circumstances, so I'm determined to focus on what I do best and care for the most. Deborahjay (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the problem areas here extended to the Final Solution article, so I invite you to review our editing history there. בברכה, El_C 03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just noticed the observation by the blocking Administrator, El_C. I believe he and I are in a Content dispute which he holds to be a Disruption for which I'm Blocked for 2-years. Give me a moment to respond appropriately. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are the opening sentences of the 2 versions of the article El_C is concerned about. I hold that the article has significantly improved because of my editing. I believe, on the other hand, that El_C wants to show it as an example of my "Disruption." You may judge for yourself of course (My cut & paste --Ludvikus (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)):

- Before Ludvikus (--Ludvikus (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)):



The Final Solution to the Jewish Question (German: Die Endlösung der Judenfrage) refers to the German Nazis' plan to engage in systematic genocide against the European Jewish population during World War II. The term was coined by Adolf Hitler as “Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe.”The implementation of the Final Solution resulted in the most deadly phase of the Holocaust. - After Ludvikus (--Ludvikus (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)):

The Final Solution (German: Die Endlösung) was Nazi Germany's plan and execution of its systematic genocide against European Jewry during World War II, resulting in the final, most deadly phase of the Holocaust (Shoah). Hitler termed it: "the solution of the Jewish question in Europe."

-
 * And here's a more extensive list of my interests:  --Ludvikus (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, wait till I tell my coworkers (all fans of Bruno Schulz) of your Drohobych connection! Awesome! Deborahjay (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My aunt (my father's sister) dated Bruno. I've got a photograph!!! And my dear mom was a housekeeper ("slave") for one of the Nazi (that's how she survived). She new the Nazi that murdered Bruno. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Holocaust, I conclude that Negationism is an instance of WP:Fork for Holocaust denial. "Negationism" is the literal translation of the French word which the French use for it ("holocaust denial"). The funny thing is that Footnotes 1 & 2 of the article ("Negationism") confirms that - but I've not been able to find any editor who actually was able to trace and examine (the "paper trail" to) these two footnotes a respond to this point - no matter how much verbosity I've extended on the matter. Would you please go to the trouble of reading these two footnotes and tell me why you think there is, or there is no WP:Forking? --Ludvikus (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've explained here why it's not a fork. Huon (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See the posting (17:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)) that User:Huon made higher up this talk page. I would also point out that an internet search on negationism shows that in those few instances where it has been used in English it is not used exclusively for Holocaust denial. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever you say may be true - however, Negationism's own initial footnote 2  says otherwise: "The "negation" in the title is the English rendition of le negationnisme, the French equivalent for Holocaust denial".)
 * There is also the usage - cited by the article Negationism said footnote: Holocaust negationism. What about that?
 * Here's the exact wording of said "annotated" reference (footnote 2):
 * "Negationism is the denial of historic crimes. The word is derived from the French term Le négationnisme, which refers to Holocaust denial.(Kornberg, Jacques. The Future of a Negation: Reflections on the Question of Genocide.(Review) (book review), Shofar, January, 2001) It is now also sometimes used for more general political historical revisionism as (PDF) UNESCO against racism world conference 31 August – 7 September 2001 "Given the ignorance with which it is treated, the slave trade comprises one of the most radical forms of historical negationism."
 * The generalization: "is the denial of historic crimes" is a contribution by a Wikipedia editor only.
 * We are also given another usage by a/the Wikipedia editor: Historical negationism. Where does that come in, or come from?
 * The cited 57 page PDF pamphlet - I could not find it's relevance. Can anyone show us the exact page(s) which makes it relevant to the points at hand? I could not find anything in it - but I did not read it.
 * That's very important, because the unknown Wikipedia editor says this (as a "summary" of the UN position): "It is now also sometimes used for more general political historical revisionism as (PDF) UNESCO against racism world conference." Where does the UN use the expression "historical revisionism" in this pamphlet?
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Searching the PDF file gave me the quote: "Given the ignorance with which it is treated, the slave trade comprises one of the most radical forms of historical negationism." Page 17, third bullet point. Actually that exact quote is part of the footnote.
 * Apparently people don't completely agree on what to call the falsification of history. Some use "historical revisionism" (or just "revisionism"), some use "historical negationism" (or just "negationism"), still others use "denial". I agree that "denial of historical crimes" isn't the best description - one can falsify history in other ways and it would still be negationism; for example, the first journal article listed here is about "negationism in India", and while I don't have access to the journal, it seems to be about the non-acknowledgement of muslim influences, but not about any crimes (and definitely not about the Holocaust). Apparently the word entered the English language via the French, and the French term may exclusively describe Holocaust denial (the French Wikipedia article suggests otherwise), but the English term obviously has a more general meaning. Huon (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Great work Huon. I so much appreciate being able to discuss the exact specifics of an issue. I have a sincere idea about ackledging that. But lets talk specifics. What you found is that the PDF reference supports historical negationism. But that has nothing to do with historical revisionism. Your own analysis of that specific part of the reference supports my analysis that we have an instance of very clever and sophisticated WP:Forking. It really is all designed to make Historical revisionism look good when in fact we are unable to find any solid references for it. In fact, I suspect we have a 4-way Forking. But I'll put that aside for the moment. The UN article has Historical negationism. So why contrive and create an artificial and misleading and monstrous article title such as Historical revisionism (negationism)? To me, it's just a cleaver way - through forking - of making Historical revisionism sound like a legitimate historical field, yet none of the references supplied ever use the expression - except as a pejorative.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There you go again: "It really is all designed to make Historical revisionism look good when in fact we are unable to find any solid references for it." First it is an accusation against all the editors who disagree with you that they are acting in bad faith, and secondly several editors have supplied several sources that state that historical revisionism is an accepted term among academic historians and hence the need for two articles. I supplied this reference this reference which you must have read, so why state: "To me, it's just a cleaver way - through forking -  of making Historical revisionism sound like a legitimate historical field, yet none of the references supplied ever use the expression - except as a pejorative"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Philip Baird Shearer. That's an explicit reference claiming that historical revisionism has a "good" meaning. I also don't get your point about what the PDF reference supports. Yes, it talks about historical negationism, and it doesn't mean the Holocaust. Thus, negationism does not exclusively refer to holocaust denial. That's what the source is supposed to show, and to me that's what it shows. It doesn't say anything, one way or another, about historical revisionism. Huon (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Huon! The fact is, this argument here made demonstrates WP:Forking.
 * Why am I being induced to talk about Historical revisionism when I'm dealing with Historical revisionism (negationism)?
 * Because the one supports the other - isn't that true? Neither article can stand alone.
 * I think each article must stand on its own feet.
 * The article under discussion is Negationism.
 * The footnote I want discussed is Reference/Footnote 2 of Negationism.
 * By it Negationism and Holocaust denial are the same.
 * I do not wish to discuss at the moment Historical revisionism - that is another issue with its own argument.
 * We can deal with that later.
 * Finally - my "attacks" are on the article - if one editor chooses to take that personally - that's his problem - not mine.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ludvikus with your last edit, you have pull the same stunt in this section on your talk page that you used in Talk:Historical revisionism/Archive 3 where you wrote "Please lets drop this discussion for now. I'm only concerned with Disambiguation at this moment. Continue that Talk below please. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)"


 * Your last two additions to this thread in this section have finally convinced me that you either genuinely do not understand what I wrote, or you are using obfuscation to avoid addressing valid points that contradict some of what you have written. Eg you wrote  "To me, it's just a cleaver way - through forking -  of making Historical revisionism sound like a legitimate historical field, yet none of the references supplied ever use the expression - except as a pejorative" (the bold emphasis was added by you not me) and I have shown that is not correct, but instead of addressing that point you write "I do not wish to discuss at the moment Historical revisionism - that is another issue with its own argument." IMHO the use of such rhetoric techniques -- whether intentionally or unintentionally) --  by you, makes  it is impossible to have a constructive conversation with you. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is getting repetitive. You claim "Negationism is Holocaust denial". If you read footnote 2, it actually says: "The word is derived from the French term...". It doesn't say: "The word means the same as the French term..." - and judging from the French Wikipedia article, even in French the term has taken on a more general meaning. We have sources, including the UN report discussed in my above post, that use "negationism" for non-Holocaust-related subjects. Or if you claim that the UN report talks about "historical negationism" and not plain "negationism", how about this: Negationism in India - Concealing the Record of Islam. So while Holocaust denial is a special form of negationism, negationism in general is more than Holocaust denial. Do you still disagree? Huon (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Because "historical revisionism" is a much more common name for the movement - actually, the name is so commonly associated with the movement that you claimed that this is the only meaning of "historical revisionism". "Negationism" is a less common name for the same movement; that's why the article is at "historical revisionism (negationism)" and "negationism" is just a redirect. Huon (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC) I have never seen "Historical Revisionism" used as a proper noun. We also cannot name the article "Historical revisionism" because that name is already taken by the legitimate academic use of the term. Huon (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But the article's name is not Negationism - it is Historical Rrevisionism (negationism). Why don't you re-name the article "Negationism" and make life so much simpler? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. So why not rename the article "Historical Revisionism" and redirect "Negationism" to it? --Ludvikus (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest the that you look here:.
 * But that's not that important. I'll think that "Historical revisionism" is good enough.
 * But you just spoke of a "movement." The movement I thought you had in mind was "Historical Revisionism."
 * My Google search shows that when it is used non-pejoratively it simply means "revisionist historians" which all good historian are - they re-examine historical events, and "revise" their views in accordance with the evidence or archives they had examined.
 * The pejorative version of "Historial R/r/evisionisme" - on the other hand - is a creation (in 1979?0) of Caro and his Barnes Review.
 * One may call a good historian a "revisionist." But to call him a "historical revisionist" is to disparage and insult - him since term in the United States connotes today the Institute for Historical Review and the Journal of Historical Review, - extremely discredited (by mainstream scholars) organization and periodical, respectively.
 * Here's Noam Chomsky on "Historical Revisionism" (1992):.
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus on Wikipedia is to adopt the majority usage, while referencing significant majorities. Thus, while the current usage of historical revisionism by the majority is the neutral academic method, the same majority holds that the practitioners of negationism are practicing just that, a denial and distortion of historical facts that are widely accepted. From the standpoint of Wikipedians, the consensus is to address subjects by their majority-held views (including terminology), while simultaneously giving attention to minority-held views in proportion to the weight capable of being proven in other, secondary sources. Within the context of these views (e.g. within the subject articles), then, self-defined terminology can be discussed as a prelude to explaining how they are applied. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. And the majority usage is that of "historical revisionism" as a pejorative - not as things stand now - which is the other way around. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your Google search reveals the reality of the capitalization question: it is capitalised completely within titles, which takes precedence over usage within summary, dialog and prose; in context it is completely uncapitalized (i.e.:,, & ).
 * I would surmise that the academic usage holds greater weight than that of popular usage (less informed and widely conflicting applications therein), which is governed by the unacademic court of popular opinion. It might be possible for articles to exist that discuss the negative opinion of historical revisionism held by the general population, but it would have to come from secondary sources that discuss this topic signficantly; we would not want to push this and "commit" original research. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a look at the 10 Google hits you linked to. The second ("SMITH'S REPORT ARCHIVE") and sixth ("SolarGeneral News and Information Portal, breaking news, news updates") use title case and thus are inconclusive either way. Hits no. 3 and 7 are copies of the same antisemitic rant which does indeed use it as a proper noun. The other hits don't. Noam Chomsky uses title case; one of the first lines reads: "I'm aware that there has been a lot of debate about my alleged opinions on "historical revisionism," but I don't agree with your assumption that there is interest in my opinions, for several reasons." So the vast majority of your own sources, all but a single rant, don't use it as a proper noun. And while mainstream scholars such as McPherson, Shermer and Grobman, etc are aware of the pejorative use, they all champion the other as the main one. The footnote 2 we discussed explicitly uses "historical revisionism" in a non-pejorative way. Huon (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On "H/h/istorical revisionism" in our discussion I'm not interested now in the capitalization issue. That's trivial in relation to the question of what it is. My more serious concern at the moment is that there's WP:Forking regarding the "good," the "bad," and the "ugly," versions of it (I believe that you gentleman know which articles I mean). Let's first talk about what this/these article(s) is/are supposed to be about. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am nearly exclusively concerned with community consensus on this issue (I do not promote my own views as majority at all, as they are strongly and fundamentally divergent), and therefore I believe that meaningful and productive discussion here would not result in useful changes because, 1) your status as a banned user would mark your opinions as disingenuous, valid or not; and 2) the isolated realm of a user's talk page is not generally accepted as the correct forum for community-wide discussion. This discussion should go on the article talk page.  Only if a significant article could be written on the perception held by majorities and significant minorities would I consider such a move to NOT be POV-forking.  If a significant discussion cannot be represented here, separate articles would only serve to place undue weight on views that may not really have that much representation/significance/notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) I understand. I think, for whatever reason, User:Huon wanted to continue a discussion with me - and I've been pleased to oblige him.
 * (2) With regard to the 2-year Blockage, I've been advised by Jpgordon on what this page is for. He's been the clearest expressor of what Wikipedia culture is all about. Unfortunately, though, my lessons have been learned after the fact.
 * (3) I would appreciate it very much if you looked into my current Blocked predicament. I have learned - after the fact - that Administrator User:El_C had written to me on his own talk page - but I was not informed of that. I believe that because I did not read what he said there - he had Blocked me. Furthermore, although I think the 2-year Block is too harsh, I wish, once again, to acknowledge that his Warning(s) - which I perceived as mear editor's "threats" at the time - were probably the result of my failure to heed his advice. However, as his advice was all on his own talk page, I was not aware of it.
 * (4) And if that caused him un-necessary frustration, please convey my sincere apology to him for that.
 * (5) Also, an abusive editor had appeared upon my page. I had the made a good faith effort to inform him as to the impropriety of his use of language - I tried - therefore- to correct his ways. And I think El_C misundertood my motives. I have no interests in causing disruption here - would only undermine the purpose of Wikipedia - which is to write good encyclopedic articles.
 * (6) As you must know, I received "warnings" from User:Boodlesthecat, and he's not an administrator. And I was not aware early enough that El_C was. I think in part I was disrupted in my thinking at the time - and that too contributed to my inability to be especially allert to what messages El_C was trying to convey to me.
 * (7) I certainly am able to begin with a fresh start - and I think I'm capable of working here without again antagonizing him - especially know that we know one another better, and if he gives me another chance. Thanks for your consideration, User:Cobaltbluetony. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to decline, based on this, this and this. It's also been brought to my attention that you did not choose to identify your IP address account usage after your block was imposed until after someone else performed a checkuser. After delving quickly into the deeper realms of your activities, I cannot support your efforts to ingratiate yourself to me with soothsaying and feigning innocence. This is not a mere ignorance of the rules on your part, and I have been made a fool of by trusting your words. I think you need to take a Wikibreak for the duration of your 2 year block, and I am not opposed to restricting the editing of your talk page so as to enforce it. There are other means by which you can legitimately promote your agenda, but Wikipedia will not be one of those avenues.

I will no longer debate this issue with you. I will not waste my time in providing diffs or examples of your flagrant sidestepping, because it continues to go deeper and deeper the more I dig. If you want a truly fresh start, "walk" away from Wikipedia and come back when you've seriously entertained the views of those whom you are so bent on discrediting -- walk in their shoes, take their trials on as your own, and recognize that they are in fact, as human as you. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)