User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 9

Repost of Jeff Riggenbach
A tag has been placed on requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template hangon underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Kingpin13 (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. You and me can't actually see the content that the page used to have (before it was deleted), but admins can, if you want to ask an admin I would suggest trying one of the ones on this list, pick someone fairly active, I'd suggest User:Accounting4Taste, User:Amalthea, User:Backslash Forwardslash, User:Balloonman, User:Closedmouth, User:Decltype, User:Drilnoth, or User:Frank, to name a few :). The reason I marked the page for deletion is because the old version of the page (the one which got deleted), had a discussion about it, and the result of that discussion was to delete the article. The discussion can be viewed at Articles for deletion/Jeff Riggenbach. Naturally this doesn't mean that the article can never be recreated, it just means that simply creating the page is the wrong way to go around getting it back. To try a restore the article, please follow the steps at WP:DR. Best - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Restriction
I took you at your word when you said "I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor."

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

User:North Shoreman has made it clear that you yet again in confrontational mode over these articles. If you edit or move any of the following pages, or their talk pages, or redirects, I will re-block you account until the the full two years of the shortened block are completed:
 * Historical revisionism
 * Historical revisionism (negationism)
 * Revisionist historians (American), Revisionist historians
 * Revisionist historians or any page which is listed there.
 * Revisionism or any page which is listed there.

I made a suggestion on 17 May 2008, that "Ludvikus should refrain from editing, (including merging or moving) any article that Ludvikus has edited since the 17:24, 6 April 2008 -- which is when Ludvikus started to edit in earnest after his/her last block." ,. I am not going to put such a restriction on you yet, but if I find that you are in conflict with any editor on any of the pages that you edited between 17:24, 6 April 2008 and your most recent block then I will reimpose the block until the full two years are up.

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


 * In reply to your questions on my talk page. Yes I am an administrator, no I am not the same person as User:PhilKnight, and neither PK or I were the administrators who imposed a two year block on you on 13 May 2008, that was User:El C.


 * If you wish to reply you can do so here as I am watching this page and it will keep the conversation in one thread. -- PBS (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'm not interested in creating WP:Disruption.
 * I've had differences over content regard the related subjects above.
 * Now I understand that I have a difference, regarding content, with two (2) editors, you, User:Philip Baird Shearer, and User:North Shoreman.
 * Now I believe there exists a conflict of interest since you are a substantial contributor to these articles, is that not true?
 * I understand that the most important priority at WP is not causing WP:Disruption. So before I do anything more, I wish to resolve this issue.
 * There was only One editor with whom I've had a disagreement with, and that is your colleague, User:North Shoreman, is that not true?
 * Also, although you are a substantial contributor to these articles, you have not had any communication with me - except for these restrictions, right?
 * Don't you think there is a better way to do things than to impose restriction on me merely because you agree with User:North Shoreman?
 * It is against WP policy to Restrict or Bar an editor merely because of Content disputes.
 * I also think you should consider the disruptive provocations I have been subjected to by this one editor, User:North Shoreman?
 * Being #100% non-confrontational means (1) not engaging in an Edit war on any content pages at WP, (2) being extremely civil in communicating with other editors.
 * That policy I've followed 100% since my return.
 * Now I'm interested in coming to peace with the two (2) I'm engaged with.


 * First, I must have a civil relation with User: North Shoreman. It must be clear that I've only had a difference in agreement with him. That's 100% true. And I've been 100% civil with him - but he has not been so with me.
 * Now I wish to resolve my dispute with you. Since I've returned - this is the first communication I've had with you. It seems to me that your are now "WP:Restricting" me purely because of your disagreement with me over Content. Isn't that 100% correct?
 * And having a civil discussions, on my talk page - like these here - does not constitute "confrontation," right? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

>==WP:POV===

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


 * User: North Shoreman is no more my colleague than any other editor including you.


 * You recently made this edit which placed this POV-intro and are you seriously trying to suggest that you have never read WP:NPOV and you did not understand this any of the seven mentions of POV in User_talk:Ludvikus/Archive 1 (I stopped counting after the first archive). -- PBS (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not willing to argue my decision you because past experience suggests that you do not listen, and I have not seen any indication that since you block was lifted that you have changed you behaviour even slightly. For example you have already retreated from "simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor." to "There was only One editor with whom I've had a disagreement with", so with less than a week of editing under your belt the "any editor" had been abandoned, on articles where you know from past experience you have been in conflict with editors who watch those pages. Why do you think you were blocked for two years? -- Please don't answer that question by posting here, instead please think about it.


 * However in the interests of natural justice, I will open an WP:ANI and will consider reversing my action if there is a strong consensus among other administrators that I should do so. --PBS (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -- PBS (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarification please. I don't understand. Are you saying you are not permitting me to write on any of the above Talk pages? I do not want to misunderstand your "restriction." Please clarify what you are prohibiting me from doing. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The restriction is on the pages listed in the bullet points above and their talk pages, and do not create pages which would mean adjusting the disambiguation page Revisionism to include them because they are on a similar topic.


 * I suggest that you do not edit, or move any article, (or their talk pages) that you edited between 17:24, 6 April 2008, and you last block which started at 22:44, 13 May 2008. As I think it likely you will stir up a hornets nest. Instead I suggest you pick a totally new area of interest (and hence group of editors) and practice "how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor." where the editors have no past experience of your editing style you can start with a clean sheet. --PBS (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As this edit was made at 16:33, before you requested clarification and my reply at 17:05, I'll let it pass. But that is your last chance until the outcome of the ANI. -- PBS (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So what should I do now? Am I supposed to defend myself on the Adm. Notice Board? I certainly did not expect any of this. I am extremely surprised that you've placed me in this Confrontational mode without any warning. I had no idea it was coming. Again, it seems I've had a content disagreement with one editor. I do not consider that a Confrontation. And even when complained about his uncivility towards me in his expressions of his views, I considered that a mere disagreement over content - not a Confrontation. Yet you placed these Restrictions against me - without any warning from you. So - again - I don't want this Confrontation. What should I do now that you've placed my name on the Adm. Notice Board? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

In response to this paragraph


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

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

- "From a Black hole nothing gets out." -- Physics 101
 * I very much appreciate your substantially constructive advice offered above. When I get a chance to study that 6-point-list of advice more carefully, I shall respond, and of course, ask you questions if there is something I do not understand as it pertains to editing at Wikipedia. Have a nice day. I look forward to the possibility of working at Wikipedia consistent with your duties as a WP:Administrator. I particularly appreciate your obvious good-faith wording shown here now in the way you have expressed that advice. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also noticed your recent entry on the Talk page of Historical revisionism, (here: ) which I find very interesting, and hope to study it carefully. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And this recent contribution of yours - at Revisionist historians also I find very interesting . --Ludvikus (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I sincerely appreciate your constructive tone and advice here. Who knows - maybe we can even be WP:Friends.
 * Unfortunately, there's no answer to my query as to what WP:Crime allegedly I've committed.
 * But I think you mean - in good faith - that if I keep asking about it - that would be digging a deeper hole for myself. But see The Trial, by Kafka.
 * Accordingly, I'll refrain, and spare you the hangman's noose.
 * But I do appreciate your positive advice for the future - my future at Wikipedia!


 * (1 Read) I'll definitely will study (a) Five pillars and (b) WP:NPOV, as you suggest I do.


 * (2 Accept) I certainly understand that I'm not to edit the specific pages I'm now restricted from:
 * I must wait until the Restriction is removed before I dare edit there again.
 * But what do you mean by "accept"? I believe the Restrict is a mistake.
 * But I will not violate the Restriction you imposed - I'll simply wait until it's removed of course. Do I need to do more than that?


 * (3 Choose) By other area, you mean an area in which I'm not Restricted, right?
 * Your "Restriction" covers four (4) articles only, right?
 * Regarding WP:1RR, I understand you mean I'm entitled to One Reversion against an editor per article, right?


 * (4 Revert) This I find extremely useful (thanks), and I'll study it very carefully:
 * (a) help:talk and
 * (b) Talk page guidelines).
 * I understand now - thanks to your observation, the need to be extremely concise on Talk pages of WP Articles.


 * (5 Move) I'm going to study carefully WP:RM and follow that policy.


 * (6 Topics) Regarding Moving pages, I find this advice very useful: apply WP:RM.
 * I think you're right - assuming non-controversy may be best for to avoid.
 * But your suggestion, obviously offered in good faith, is unnecessary - I have no need external inspirations regarding topics for me to write on.


 * Thanks again for your constructive advice. I have my Dialogue issues. But I'll get to them at another time. Have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Perhaps you might be interested in my substantial contributions to Wikipedia in spite of my Kafkaesque WP:WikiCrime record User:Ludvikus/UA A: record

Historical revisionism & related pages
I certainly intend to honor your four (4) restrictions you listed above.
 * But I see no justification for you to restrict me from the Talk pages thereof?
 * Would you please reconsider just lifting the Restrictions regarding the Talk pages?
 * I think you are right - I must be much briefer in my postings.
 * But otherwise, what's the point of not letting me argue on how to improve these pages?
 * The Content pages must be edited by Consensus. But I'm not interested in editing these Content pages pages now.
 * I understand that you, and another editor, disagree with my views. So my views are not with the Consensus. I'll certainly honor that.


 * Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Revisionist historians (American)
===Historical revisionism (American)=== CORRECTION --Ludvikus (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * '''Correction - in the section title - made today: --Ludvikus (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * [I just discovered this wonder header above]. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see now - after the fact - how you might have misconstrued the above as a deliberate "Point-of-View Fork."
 * But I assure you that my intent was not that.
 * I do understand the need for a consensus.
 * But if you look carefully, User:North Shoreman substantially contributed to this article.
 * So I think that you found it to be a POV Fork because of his contributions.
 * My intent was actually (pardon my pun) a revision of an aspect of that phenomena based on new 2009 libertarian scholarship. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not Revert or Delete his contributions.
 * I wanted to write about these scholars:
 * 1) '''D. F. Fleming
 * 2) '''Charles A. Beard
 * 3) '''Gabriel Kolko
 * 4) '''Gar Alperovitz
 * 5) '''Harry Elmer Barnes
 * 6) '''Howard Zinn
 * 7) '''James J. Martin
 * 8) '''Sidney Bradshaw Fay
 * 9) '''Walter LaFeber
 * 10) '''William Appleman Williams
 * I hope you understands me now. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I Think your belief that there was a Fork is due to the substantial contributions made by User:North Shoreman. And because I did not want to Confront him (as per my promise)
 * Now if you look at your historical revisionism article you'll find that there's little in common with it and the I created prior to User:North Shoreman's substantial contributions. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I find this 2009 book by Jeff very interesting - it suggests that current views of certain aspects of Revisionism are now (2009) Revised by said author. .
 * What do you think of this 2009 book by said Jeff? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The full title of the excerpted book is this: Why American History Is Not What They Say: An Introduction to Revisionism. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What about this WP article: Historiography of the Cold War? It contradicts the historical revisionism articles, and it is not linked to them. Why? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's best if I go on a self-imposed vacation. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I noticed that you have claimed on some other user pages "Well, I'm only Restricted to four (4) articles" Please read what I wrote carefully "Revisionism or any page which is listed there." as currently there are eight articles listed on that page. --PBS (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I'm not interested in Confrontations with editors. Therefore, I intend to Ban myself from Wikipedia until you re-track your positions as expressed here. My current intention is not to make Any contributions to Wikipedia Content pages until such time as you modify, or qualify, what you have just said here (immediately above).
 * It is impossible for me to know what pages exactly you want me not to edit.
 * I also am extremely disturbed by the "personal attacks" on me by your saying that I'm "obsessed" with Historical revisionism related articles, etc. Your Dialog with me now is obviously a Confrontation which I do not wish to engage with. I will not edit Any articles (zero) for Wikipedia until such time as you retract your "personal attack" on me. I intend to Ban myself from Wikipedia - unless you take back what you have just said about me - and clarify exactly which articles you want me not to edit. I find the tone and style of your discourse here Disruptive to me personally, and it is impossible for me to make any contributions. Unless You can find a way of restoring my belief in your Good Faith - I see that's it's impossible for me to continue. I urge you, please, to reconsider what you have just written about me. If you do not modify this impossible set of restrictions, I feel like I should not write anything at Wikipedia. You now have upset me extremely by your unfair restrictions and generalizations about my conduct since my return. That gives me a horrible impression of Wikipedia. I consider this a Confrontation of you against me. And I do not wish to have any part of this. I have made countless contributions, original Content articles to Wikipedia. And you obviously have no knowledge, or appreciation of that. And I've had productive exchanges with hundreds of editors as well.
 * Therefore, since I do not wish to engage in Confrontations with editors, I will Ban myself from Wikipedia - unless you take back, or substantially modify, much of what you've just said here about my work for Wikipedia. Unless I can get a good, working, relationship with you, PBS I feel like keeping myself away from Wikipedia.
 * Here's a partial listing of my successful work for Wikipedia:.
 * Unless you acknowledge that I have made many valuable contributions to the Content of Wikipedia, I do not see what point there is for me to continue.
 * It is clear (by the above) that you assess my many positive Content contributions to Wikipedia as non-existent, and therefore I have just lost my belief in your "good faith" towards me personally. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Within historiography, that is part of the academic field of history, historical revisionism is ..." - Historical revisionism


 * In the above, you are using against me the fact that I disagree that "historiography" "is a part of the academic field of history." If you insist on prohibiting me from raising such objections, within the confines of Wikipedia rules, I do not see the point of my participation at Wikipedia at all. The WP:POV Intro Tag I placed on the Historical revisionism page is due to my extreme caution. But it seems that you do not understand my gentle suggestion that the relation between Historiography and History is misleading or inaccurate. Or do you belief that this opening sentence is appropriate and accurate as it stands? I really do not know what you think about that. But I do know that you have absolutely no basis for attacking my on this point - as a reason why I should be restricted. I do not wish a Confrontation with you. If you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge this point, I do not wish to many any substantive contributions to Wikipedia. And you certainly make me feel know like my value to Wikipedia is Zero. You have not shown me now that you have a Good Faith interest in me as a Wikipedian. Unless you cease this provocation into a Confrontation with you, my intent is to go on a voluntary, hopefully, long, leave of absence. And I realize that you may use this Good Faith expression of my true feelings to turn my Restriction into a Ban. If that is your true desire, so be it. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * Thanks for your clarrification and removal of the offending word - I appreciate very much your response and now feel that there's some hope; however, there remains one serious issue left as far as I'm concerned.


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

Cookie
And did you take away my Cookie? If so, why? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Here it's given to me:.
 * 2) And here it looks like you took it away: --Ludvikus (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I've noticed that you apparently were also given the same Cookie which you've kept: ] --Ludvikus (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) So if you've taken my Cookie from me, won't you please give it back to me ? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is spam, put it back delete it or do what you like with it on this page. I removed it so that my comments were at the bottom of the page and I wanted my reply to be clear to you. --PBS (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


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

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

Cookie


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

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

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

World Domination update
I've suggested merging World Domination into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I hope you are not offended in any way. I think you are very sincere and well-meaning, but the article itself is no longer up to WP standards as a stand-alone article - IMO as I explained at the discussion. Discussion is at Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. Not at all. If you look at the article before I got to it - and trimmed it - it was, I think, original research. So your proposal is certainly sound - as far as I'm concerned. I'm confident that you can do the appropriate editing on that. It certainly does not deserve an article to itself since it's primarily mostly that pejorative I've described. But it used to be a rather long article full of nonsense which has now been edited out (and I'm pleased to have been part of that reduction and revision which now makes your move possible). --Ludvikus (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've informed everyone who voted on the AfD. Let's see if anyone else weighs in before merging. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Solicitation
[This edit] is unacceptable see WP:meat puppet -- PBS (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

- -
 * Comment I object and am offended at being called a "meat puppet"! Ludvikus did not invite me to "come to Wikipedia", as the policy states, I have been here for years.  Nor do I even agree with his "side of the debate."  I think Holocaust denial and Historical revisionism are two different things and the other should only be mentioned in each article in a short note explaining that fact.  I hope I have understood the "debate" correctly, perhaps I am not as smart as Ludvikus thinks I am. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for your interjection. I also deny that neither you, nor I, are "meat puppets"! And I apologize to you for the distress that this unfounded accusation obviously has caused you. I certainly have no idea what your views are. We met, what, a day ago? And only here - in cyberspace. Have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think WP should get rid of the expression "meatpuppet" since we are supposed to not bite newcomers, etc. Sorry I couldn't offer any help in your "debate." :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary - see exactly what this rule recommends and notice that I've done precisely what it recommends (says User:Ludvikus):

-
 * Don't forget that there also is this WP:Boldness rule. As I see things at the moment, there's only a Content dispute between me and you over Revisionism. And I've sought the assistance of another Wikipedian who might be helpful. I've not at all prodded him to voice a view that agrees with me. In fact, I have no idea what his position is, or will be. I just think he might contribute a view that might assist in reconciling the views which might be different between us - you and me. When I said that I did not intend to Confront other editors, I meant it. At the moment there's this situation where you disagree with my editing regarding the (4) articles you have banned me from. I accept the Ban. It has been apparently approved by other Administrators. And I accept that fact. But it seems to me at this moment, your criticism of me is totally inaccurate. The rule you cite says precisely this: "seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians". That's exactly what I've done. I have absolutely no understanding how you can use this rule against me in this instance. And I would appreciate your retraction very much. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS1: Thank you for giving me back that Cookie. I do appreciate it. It suggests to me that there is a possibility of us accommodating each other respecting our presence at WP. I sincerely wish that. You keep showing me some flexibility - and I appreciate that very much. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS2: I'm aware that this observation came to your attention as an alleged "topic Ban" by User:North Shoreman. I certainly wish very much to know his views, and to work more effectively with him. But I don't know how to do that. I know that he's also an editor extremely interested in historical revisionism. So if the both of you express a view opposite to mine, I would immediately recognize the consensus as being in your favor. So I would very much appreciate it if you helped me learn how to work better with this editor. I feel as if I upset him so much, that he's only interested in finding violations against me. I think that's why he came to your Talk page and suggested I had violated a "topic ban." As you know, the rules of Wikipedia are very complex. And are often in conflict - so that ultimately the most important attribute is Good Will among editors. I wish very much if you could help me create Good Will, and WP:Good faith among us there. Ironically, I feel that's a possibility with you, but I feel otherwise regarding this other editor. I do want a good working relationship with him. He has worked with me at WP since my return. So unless there is peace among us three (3) I think it will be just a matter of time before an excuse is found to Ban me. So what do you recommend on this issue with him? Here's the Diff indicating that this new issue originated by User:North:Shoreman: . --Ludvikus (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I find your citations, given on the Talk page of Historical revisionism, very interesting (says User:Ludvikus):
 * George Herbert Mead: critical assessments, Volume 1, By Peter Hamilton, page 100
 * Hiroshima in history and memory, By Michael J. Hogan, page 219
 * Theorizing historical consciousness, Part 16, By Peter C. Seixas page 26
 * But I'm deeply saddened that the conversation is only between you, and User:North Shoreman. And if you both agree on the issues, than you certainly form a Consensus which I do, and would honor, as is my WP duty. But I do not understand why you wish to exclude me from the conversation. I am deeply disappointed. But of course - I will not participate - unless you allow me to do so. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I will not discuss article historical revisionism with you on this or any other page until after your restriction ends.


 * Your misunderstanding about Wikipedia processes and editorial conduct is why you have the current restrictions on you. You are not in a content dispute with me, you are restricted from editing certain Wikipedia articles because just about the first thing you did on your return to Wikipeida was to return to the same behaviour that helped to get you blocked. For example you went ahead and created an article which a previous consensus had decided was not appropriate. As it happens you had a new publication which may have persuade editors that such an article was justified. But rather than open up a discourse at talk:Historical revisionism to discuss if the consensus on this issue had changed, you just went ahead and created the article.


 * You were warned at the ANI by User:Bwilkins not to try to wikilawer your way around what was being said and yet you are still trying to do it! After you past behaviour arguing that you are being bold and quoting "seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians" does not help your case. If you had been and read the five pillars and followed the advise given about following WP:dispute resolution given to you by user:PhilKnight, you would realise that that sentence means file an RfC (to which it links!), not meat puppetry. As you are restricted from editing the talk pages as well as the articles, you can not follow the usual dispute resolutions, for those pages until the restriction is lifted. I included talk pages as well as the article pages, to stop you disrupting this area of Wikipedia by processes other than just editing the content of those pages. I am not going to comment further on the restrictions I placed on you but if you continue to attempt to influence editors to act as proxies for you, or if you attempt to initiate processes such a mediation on any of the restricted articles (including those listed on the revisionism dab page) I will block you account. I do not want to do that because, I don't want to be in conflict with you as I really want you to go and edit other areas of Wikipedia and lean how to edit collaboratively, so come next May you can again work on all of Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I find this discussion with you very productive and useful for my work at Wikipedia.


 * I certainly accept - and respect - your final word - which to Restrict me from a certain family of four (4) articles related to historical revisionism. My interest is only in clarifying the issue of why you chose it upon yourself to Restrict me. I now realize that it was for one reason alone, namely my creation of the article Revisionist historians (Americans). You see that as a violation by me. If it is, I can assure you that it was not intentional. And it does not justify your characterizing my editing as so horrible as you still obviously think it is. I'm not now Wikilawyering. I'm simply trying to set the record straight. Your objection to my conduct is the creation of this said article: Revisionist historians (Americans). That's all, in fact, that I did wring - according to your reports above, right? And you cite that Diff to support you finding. I can only assure you that I did not intend to do that. And you should realize that I have a legitimate Content concern on this matter - because you yourself are now engaging in a discussion on this subject on the Talk page of historical revisionism. So clearly there is a Content dispute - otherwise you would not find it necessary to Talk about the issues I've raised.


 * I respect your restrictions. And I certainly intend to honor them.


 * However, I do not think your continued Personal Attack on me is at all warranted. I want to be clear on why you Restricted me. The only reason you restricted me is because I had created the article on those American historical revisionists, and you think that I did that in violation of the consensus which existed in 2007 or 2008 - is that not true?


 * But why must you continue in describing my work at Wikipedia as so much in violation of most of its rules? That is simply not accurate. It is merely a personal attack on me. I deserve to know exactly what it is that I did wrong according to you. I understand that you decided that this was a WP:POV Fork. But that's the ONLY thing I did wrong - according to you - right?


 * If there was any other violation - upon my return - please let me know, so that I will not repeat the mistake. You seem to forget WP:Assume good faith when it comes to me. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: "The Donkey and the carrot." That's how things seem to be at WP. After each Ban, one gets better, but the burden gets more difficult each time one tries, or simply because of one's record. I think I must remind you that criminal records are often sealed at trial - simply because the fact that one committed a crime before does imply that one also committed one now. It seems to me that your judgment about me now is clouded by my previous record of having been banned before. That's why I need to know what exactly I did wrong - not the generalizations about my alleged WP misconduct conduct. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The article Haskins Medal has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Article has no references, just a lone external link to subject's own site. This does not qualify subject for a Wikipedia article.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hellno2 (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


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

Talkback
Doktor Mandrake  00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've responded on your talk page - with an important question! --Ludvikus (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Doktor Mandrake  01:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be extremely cautious in advising me that I may remove the Tag in 7 days. I created the article. So my understanding is that I may NOT remove the Tag. I've also replied on your Talk page. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've replied again at my talk page - I like to keep the discussion in one place, rather than fragment it. Doktor  Mandrake  01:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. And I now answered you there. But since your advising me that I have a right to remove that Tag, I would appreciate it if (a) you did it yourself, or (b) posted your advice here, so that there is no misunderstanding as to the fact that I'm acting under your sound advice. Maybe you could also tell me (here, on my page) that the Tag removal is consistent with the views of other editors? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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

I will not remove the tag for you, as that would indicate that I was the one contesting the prod, when in actuality I believe the concerns have not been resolved - the article still lacks reliable independent sources to establish and verify notability. It would probably be best to rectify this before contesting. Kind regards, Doktor  Mandrake  02:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Thanks a million. Much appreciated. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the suggestions that DoktorMandrake made was that you find a source to show that the award is notable. At the moment, despite your improvements to the article, you have not cited any references for any of the information on the page. If you do not know of any third party sources to show notability you can easily find some with a Google search on [ "Haskins Medal" ]. For example here are a couple of reliable third party sources returned on the first page which show it is a notable award and explain a bit about it.
 * Canadian Who's Who 2001, Volume 36 by Elizabeth Lumley, p. 500
 * The Journal of Value Inquiry, Volume 41, Numbers 2-4 / December, 2007. DOI 10.1007/s10790-007-9093-5, p. 419-427. "New" by John M. Abbarno Associate Editor Abstract
 * -- PBS (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very, very much, WP Administrator PBS. What I find most important - more important than that one article - is the fact that you are giving me constructive advise. My number one priority - at the moment - is to learn how to make piece with you. And your constructive advice here is very encouraging. I'd like to observe the following learning experience: (a) I have to be able to identify those articles which are controversial - more particularly, those where edit wars may have taken place, for example. And (b) in such articles one must proceed very cautiously. I understand that the articles you've listed here (above) are such articles.
 * Now regarding your recommendation, specifically, I'd like to point out that I only wished to create a  . If I cannot get support in the development of this article, and it is deleted, rather than expanded, so be it. However, I'd like you to see that I've expanded the article tremendously since that Flag to delete was on it. Also, I think now the article is linked to so many articles within Wikipedia which make reference to the Medal, that I cannot imagine it being deleted if WP rules are followed. But I understand (and accept) that at Wikipedia it is Consensus rather than Truth which rules. Have a nice day, and I sincerely hope we could become WP:Friends, even if we never agree on the contents of the topic over which, at the moment, we disagree. Sincerely, --Ludvikus (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: If you don't mind, I'm going to Cut & Paste, and Post, your informative recommendation, you've here made, on the Talk page of the Haskins Medal article, so other editors there can benefit from it as well. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also note this posting at the Talk page of said article:


 * --Ludvikus (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also note this posting on the Talk page (of said article):


 * --Ludvikus (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And finally note this there:


 * Said award is presented for a distinguished book in the field. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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


 * The sources/references are now in the Footnotes and External links. So am I within my rights to remove the two (2) Flags asking for sources? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Readers are not mind-readers--they should not have to guess that the sources are on line, or in the external links, or that a different footnote may also cover those sections--so before removing the requests for sources add citations for the information,(in a similar manner as I did for the two example ones I added). Removing requests for sources without providing in-line citations could be seen as a breach of WP:PROVEIT. -- PBS (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That reference - WP:PROVEIT - is something I haven't explicitly studied. It's useful. But I did edit the article - Haskins Medal - substantially - before I removed the Tags. Now I feel extremely disappointed in you. Although I've created this   all by myself, you have not complimented me on that at all. All you can find here is what I've done incorrectly. It appears to me that you're only interested in compiling a record against me. I do not see any, real, WP:Good faith towards me yet. You make me feel like you are big brother of Nineteen Eighty-Four who's looking for a reason to get me Banned. It's really beginning to feel like I'm wasting my time at Wikipedia. I have not yet heard a single, encouraging word from you which shows that I'm an excellent Wikipedia? Don't you think it's time to remove the Restriction you've imposed on me? It's unfortunate that I haven't been able to keep myself away from Wikipedia yet. And if that be so - it would be your failure to find a single good thing that I've done. Why am I spending my so much time at Wikipedia in such an unfriendly environment? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not compiling a record against you, I am trying to advise you so that you will learn how Wikipedia editors interact, so hopefully no one will feel the need to raise an RFC or any other request for sanctions against you.


 * If a person adds a request for citations to an article, usually it means that if you are interested in removing the fact template or whatever, then a suitable in-line citation is given. Over recent years (see 100,000 feature-quality articles), there has been a general move to cite most facts in the better articles. When I create an article whether a stub or something larger I always cite my sources (eg. Edmund Thomas (parliamentarian) and Cromwell's Other House). -- PBS (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)