User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 13

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Re: File:1934 Protocols Patriotic Pub.jpg

Hi, I've restored the file. You can see the history as to why it was tagged. Spellcast (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million!!! --Ludvikus (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

X

Testing! --Ludvikus (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

|}

WP:NFCC

Hi Ludvikus. Please could you remove File:Telescreen.png from the collapse box on your user page, as even if it is in the collapse box it is still in direct contravention of Wikipedia policy on usage of non free content, and effectively a copyright violation. Thanks! Pedro : Chat 21:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million for your advice. Have done as you recommended. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for indenting with the colon so it can't be seen. I'm sure it seems a bit petty but I am also sure you understand the reason we can't have non free content on user pages as well. Thank you for being so quick to deal with this. Happy editing! Pedro : Chat 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I trust your judgment. That's good enough for me. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI

IMO and admitting some (okay, a lot) of ignorance of wiki protocol, in a legal context my last post in there is the way I'd pursue that. the ANI is a legal motion filed on its own merits, and others came in and tried to pile on it with other issues and even attempted to be qualified to comment on your conflict at NWO/CT- qualified they may be but their bias, especially as argued by PBS, was unfair. (FWIW I think Tom is a straight shooter- how'd you run afoul of him?) Nothing they are complaining about would have been enough to warrant that motion in the first place and if it is groundless (loremaster and Arthur Rubin exploited your troubled past to keep your hands off of HIS article)their comments while all possibly true should be expunged right along with the BS ANI. If they want to motion for banning then that should be another matter. Otherwise we would have courtrooms filled with people filing false charges just to slander people endlessly until the original allegations were forgotten in the fray. Nice way to punk people. You're getting screwed on this deal but you know what- you probably are a PITA. I like you though and feel you are an asset to wikipedia. I'm outta there but will watch its progression and put in a good word later if it's relevant. Good luck. Batvette (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But who's Tom? You sure you got the right dude? I finally figured out what PITA means. I only imaged you were maybe a nice Arab who liked his falafel. But don't hold your breadth - by the time you get back I may not be here anymore. But don't worry, it's not what you imagine. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Pain in the ass, though perhaps I don't think of it so negatively as you or others take it. to me it means someone who is tolerable and somewhat amusing at it. not like what I just posted at loremasters page and what I will now post at that disgraceful ANI.Batvette (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

As per my most recent comment at ANI, I have blocked you indefinitely. You may, of course, appeal via the usual channels. Moreschi (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And give a self-proclaimed "jerk" like yourself satisfaction? No thanks. I'll wait till Jimbro strips you of your "gun" and replaces you with a computer. Only then will Wikipedia significantly improve. In the mean time, you can go and jerk-off your colleagues here with your "gun" drawn to their "head." Lovely "civil" vocabulary you use - I wonder if Jimbo condones that? Anyway, you've done me a big favor. You've proven that it requires one to submit to bullies like you to survive here. And if that's Jimbo's idea of producing an encyclopedia, I don't want to have any part of it. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked [1]

Ludvikus, I am very sorry to see this happen. I strongly urge you to contest this unfair block. I have felt for some time that you are an excellent editor and that your contributions are invaluable to the project as a whole, not just the few articles you choose to edit. Again, I am very sorry my friend. I very much look forward to seeing you out in front of everyone else once again soon. - 4twenty42o (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm glad there are nice people like you around. But I find this place far too ugly to want to appeal. And I don't want to give these "jerks" any satisfaction. I'll miss you, and the other true Content-editors. But I find this last banning editor utterly disgusting. And you should know that they all stick up for each other. So even if I was interested, I would not succeed in an appeal. But I'm truly not interested in editing now. Maybe later when Jimbo replaces these ugly Cops with Computer-software. But even then I'll probably find a much more rewarding and civil environment. I wish you the best. Too bad you're not an Administrator. But a nice person like you would not be accepted as such. Most of them are jerks, like the one who blocked me. And I think none have the balls to over-ride him. To be an administrator you have to be a coward - like all bullies are. And I never liked bullies, nor have I ever submitted myself to them. So I'm glad to be out of here. --Ludvikus (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

i would not make such generalizations about administrators, nor any other group of people. i did encounter a few decent ones, who base their decisions on reason, and not emotion. BUT, i have a suggestion for you, try to contact an arbitrator. they are in general MUCH more responsible than administrators, and they don't wave with blocks the way "small minded" administrators do. (note that i just made a generalization -- but it is not really such a generalization, as there are only few arbitrators, so generalization is based on consideration of the most of the sample :) 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to make your observations. However, I think you, and probably Jimbo Wales is un-aware of the extent to which Wikipedia is run by such bullies as those that ganged up on me. That is utterly disgusting. If they cannot break you into kissing their asses, they will Block you. Don't you see how they stick together? They don't care how valuable your contributions are. All they really care about is that you lick their boots. And in such an atmosphere I definitely do not belong. Let me remind you what happened - I asked that threatening Administrator to be my Mentor. His reply involved a remark about "holding a gun to my head." That's exactly how it works at Wikipedia. If you do not Conform, one of the comes over, and "puts a gun to your head." That guy is definitely what he said he was not - a "jerk." A do not what to be in a place were a "jerk" like that blocking Administrator, and his supporting side kick, a character named "[[User:Blueboy96]" do "hold a gun to my head." I suggest they uses to blow each others heads, not hold that gun of theirs to mine. It's these two characters who, working in concert "blue my brains out." If you are willing to work in that kind of atmosphere, fine. I'm not willing to do that. But I will miss you, though. That's the only bad part - the editors, who actually do the writing, and editing are normal human beings, like you. But I think these so-called "administrators" are mostly sadomasochists, I'm not. They should play those games with one another. Not with me. Besides, Wikipedia, because they control it, is far below my standard of scholarship. So I do need to find a better place to make my contributions. But I'm glad I finally expressed my anger at these disgusting administrators who often partner with a lackey. Maybe, one day, Jimbo will find the time to do something about such "jerks." Again, I will miss you. But that too makes them happy. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

my guidance in life is this: All that evil needs to prevail is for good men to do nothing! 212.200.205.163 (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. It's extremely appreciated! --Ludvikus (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Since 2003 you are here? Wow. A Serbian bother I see. Serbs are Slavs, right? I'm Czech by birth - so we're related? So much so that they think we're the same! Have you read nineteen eighty-four?

Yep, we are Slavs. some native english editors seem to have problems with our usage of their language. :) they seem confused with some things we say, and we need to explain to them that perception in our countries of things they talk about (i.e. conspiracy theories) is different from their perception. that's why i insist on finding better sources for their 'american angled' statements. 1984 -- honestly, i don't remember if i read it, i think i did, but i totally know what it is about. a few books / movies talk about similar topic. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You better answer quickly - before you're Blocked for "disruption." Anyone now who stand-up for me is a disruptor. Even this statement can be viewed as a "disruption." I could even be blocked for this. So you have to be very careful, and conform to the majority. How is that good for creating a great encyclopedia? It seems rather a way of insuring that it remain mediocre. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

i don't conform to majority, like ever. there are times i don't say anything, as i see it would not have effect. when i do say it, i say it because i don't want to change their mind, but the mind of their listeners. there is a time for everything. now, you have to understand 2 things. when editors call you disruptive or this or that, and it is not true, you can respond in few ways. one is to be spontaneous, and simply state plain straight what they are doing, but there is a civillity policy which makes it easy for passive aggressive types to get what they want, while getting you banned if you respond in a non passive aggressive way. another way is to be wise and calm, and point out to the identifying incivility section, and to point out that in order for them to be civil, they have to point specific diffs of your disruption, etc., to backup accusations with facts. why is this important. because, even when there are few of editors backing up each other, if you are right, and truth is on your side, other uninvolved editors will see it, and will act upon it. that is why RfC, and similar tools are very good for article disputes - it expands discussion from few article's regulars to a wider group of editors. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That's sound advise. But when I started editing at Wikipedia, in 2006, I was naive in my belief that it was possible for me to edit successfully at Philosophy. There I got disagreements from different editors for different reasons. Eventually on megalomaniac (I'm not naming him, so it's not a personal attack), evaluated me on the Bristol Stool Scale. Well, I exploded. Anyway, the result was being labeled a "disruptor." Now every time an editor or administrator disagrees with me, they look up my record, and I'm just being "disruptive" all over again. So you have a clean record. I'm a Wiki criminal. And there's another thing. Not so many editors or administrators are as intelligent as you and me - so they cannot do all that reading or research you suggest. If the argument is long - well, you're a "disruptor." But I'll re-read what you wrote to see if there's something I missed from which I can learn. But notice that I'm not jumping in to beg that I be un-blocked. I'm really hoping Jimbo Wales would replace some of these Administrators with a Computer - especially that User:Moreschi, and his side kick User:Blueboy96, who approved the idea of "holding a gun to my head." This blue-boy editor thinks I was not justified in agreeing with User:Moreschi that he's a "jerk" for saying he would be "holding a gun to my head." As you can see, WP:Civility means nothing to these Administrators - and now my demand for Civility has become, itself, a new reason to Block me - they will call this demand for Civility itself disruptive. I thing an administrator talking about "holding a gun to an editors head" is extremely disruptive, and that's not a "grudge" - it's my effort to get Wikipedia to improve itself. It appears that the "senior administrator" thinks otherwise. But he shows some wisdom in lifting the Block over you. I don't think he'll do that when it comes to me - because once your labeled a "disruptor" at Wikipedia, anything you say that isn't agree able - is just another "disruption." --Ludvikus (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

that is a vary nasty scale. he should have been blocked immediately. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

But User:Blueboy96, his side-kick, has been here since 2005. So that should tell you something about the real culture of Wikipedia. According to User:Blueboy96, for me to call an administrator who says he's a "jerk" for saying he's "holding a gun to my head" is grounds to get me an indefinite ban. So what's the pretense at civility. You know, if somebody slaps you in the face and you hit him/her back, whose disruptive? By the way, I watched Jimbo Wales on YouTube yesterday - and that's the word he used: "jerk." He actually stated that there are "jerks" at Wikipedia. We also have the expression, "don't be a dick." This is - apparently - an appropriate expression at Wikipedia - but to be used cautiously. So I don't believe that "jerk" should ban me indefinitely when in fact the banning administrator is what he himself considered about himself. He said he didn't want to be a "jerk." Yet he has the power to lift this Block. But you know what may in fact happen? Some other "jerk" Administrator will come and Block this page for "disruption." That's why I say to Jimbo Wales - replace many of these jerks by software - it knows better how to be "soft" and doesn't need to "hold a gun to the head of another editor." Oh, I know - I'm playing the victim. I'm holding a "grudge." There are too many ways these administrators can abuse their privileges. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

To say that I am extremely relieved that you have been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia is an understatement. However, as I've told you before, although your major proposed changes to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article were soundly rejected because of their convoluted logic or poor style, I cannot deny that some of your minor proposed changes have improved the article and I thank you for them. That being said, I hope you will see your ban not as a punishment but a motivator to finally take the time to both deeply familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines but also reliable sources for the subject of any article you take interest in. I therefore sincerely hope you come back to us as a better person to collaborate with on making Wikipedia the best free encyclopedia. Take care. --Loremaster (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"I therefore sincerely hope you come back to us as a better person to collaborate with on making Wikipedia the best free encyclopedia. Take care." I'm focusing on that remark of yours, and want you to know that I'm a forgiving person. We might have worked things out down the road, and I think you probably are not fully aware of yourself. I hope this was a learning experience for you. It's not nice how you are still insisting on calling User:Batvette a "conspiracy theorist." I read the "truce" message you left on his Talk page. My anger is actually not as great with you as it is with those "jerks" who feel they are "holding a gun to my head." Unfortunately, it is these kind of quasi-psychopaths who ultimately run this place, and as long as they are in charge, I do not wish to be here, around them. However, I realize that you are a passionate content editor, and I think that over time you would have learned to put aside your extremely abusive ways of confronting other editors. So if your hope is that I learn to live with such abuse, then you're gravely mistaken. I'm formally trained - among other subjects - in philosophy. In that field there's a distinction made (derived from the ancient Greeks) between knowing how (techne) and knowing that (episteme) (I see it's in red, too bad I'm not around to make it blue, but maybe someone else will do that in my honor - I'm joking about the last word). Knowing that consists, roughly speaking of facts and theories, and therefore knowledge. And that was the beginning of philosophy. However, "techne," which they denigrated, is how one acquires morality. You can get knowledge from a professor through a single lecture. But to become physically fit, you need to work out. So I think we could have worked things out, and I could have invited you to one of the colleges where I teach to get some interesting knowledge that's not readily available on the web. But the more important aspect of our exchange would have been the quasi-physical training whereby you would have become more sensitized to labeling people as "cranks." I hope you give this experience with me its due weight - because if I had to choose between the good of your soul, and wiping out Wikipedia, I assure you I would, without any hesitation choose your soul. There is a saying and belief in Judaism that to save a soul is to save the whole world. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't generally post to blocked talk pages because it's not really fair nor appropriate, but seeing some of the smarmy clueless responses on this page almost makes me cry. You seem to me to have no idea how you come across to other people. I see you bandy about phrases like "I think you probably are not fully aware of yourself" and "I hope this was a learning experience for you" that screams egotistical to me. You are not always right, and I'm willing to bet that your belief that you are is a big part of what got you banned. Your lack of English skills has led to several misunderstandings but, rather than accept that you do not have the command that a native speaker has, you continuously try for nuanced jokes that don't translate well over typed communication. You put forth that Loremaster should "...give this experience with [you] its due weight..." as if the simple contact with you holds some magical experience for the receiver. But you refuse to accept that anything you've gone through, none of the myriad of editors that must have spoken with you, could have possibly been anything other than "Jerks" ganging up on you. Do you understand how belittling it is to tell someone that they are so insignificant that you don't even recognize their efforts as attempts to help? They couldn't be helping you, because that would suggest that you need help and that's not a thought that occurs to you naturally. You make the offer to "invited [Loremaster] to one of the colleges where [you] teach to get some interesting knowledge that's not readily available on the web" which spits in the face of the fact that Loremaster may already have that knowledge. Are you suggesting that if it's not provided by you, it's not worthwhile? It's also belittling to suggest that the bulk of Loremasters knowledge came only from the web. This being an anonymous forum you have no idea who this person is nor what level of education they posses. And the implication that Loremaster is in a position to learn from you begs the question "What have you tried to learn from Loremaster?" I hope against hope that you find it in your psyche to review some of the previous discussions and investigate the other users points of view for worthwhile advice, rather than dismiss them out of hand as uninformed and beneath you. Padillah (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You're a good example of a person who jumps to conclusions when s/he doesn't know the whole story. If you're interested, you should study this: Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory), especially the Archived and/or Deleted pages. If you are really fair and open-minded you'll switch to my side. What you should look for is an extensive record of Personal Attacks, not just against me, but more so against User:Batvette. When a person engages in WP:Personal attacks the subject moves to a new level for me. That, probably, was my greatest mistake. That being said, humility is not a formal requirement to be a WP editor. And that being said, User:Loremaster displayed his ego 1,000 times more than I did. Furthermore, my comment is not addressed to your understanding, it's to his. He doesn't need you as his lawyer. Assuming Good faith on your part, the fact is that you don't know what your talking about, otherwise you would address your displeasure to User:Loremaster. This kind of non sequitur remark of yours is another example of why I'm nor rushing to "beg" to be re-adimtted to Wikipedia. I think you probably don't know what it means to be a bully, or do you know someone close who is? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

An IQ of 140, a weight of 85lbs and a smart mouth and you think I don't know what a bully is?!? It's all-knowing statements like this that tell me how egotistical you are. Suggesting that a simple reading of the facts is all it will take to make me see your side, insinuating that I have not already read those pages and other interactions I'm speaking to. That's insulting. That you think you are so correct that anyone who read the pages would agree with you is an insult. If you are as smart as you say you are why are you trying to justify your actions by comparing them to others? I did not post this on Loremasters page, nor did I defend, or even address, Loremasters actions so why you feel the need to bring them up is beyond me. You have shown over and over again that you lack the ability to view your own actions objectively. I'm sorry to hear that. Padillah (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You're now engaged in a Personal attack on me. The only question I have is will an administrator step forward and WP:Block you for this? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
And I note that you yourself are an Administrator! You've been arround since 2007. And you're an Administrator for about a year, right? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd guess you have an IQ about half of mine. Therefore I'll tell you why you are here: You want to provoke me to say something which will get me Blocked, right? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's an appropriate message especially for you: "Don't be a dick".
Go post your comments where they really belong. By the way, I'm still evaluating your moral skills on the Bristol stool scale and find you on the very bottom of that chart. Thanks very much for visiting.

PS:I knew that sooner or later someone of your caliber was bound to show up. But I wasn't holding my breath - just my nose. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I know my presence here probably is unwelcome, but in response to (3), you are already blocked. However, continuing in this manner (calling other editors dicks and referring to the stool scale, for example) may result in the block being extended to your Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why User:Malik Shabazz, you are most welcome. You are the main reason I got Blocked for 2 years. You've already been identified by User:Verdatum (someone for whom I have great respect) as the one who has been WP:hounding me. I'm happy to see that you're still at it. But why are you being disingenuous? You already said that you blame me for the state of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I think you just want to see me Blocked so that you get that article to appear the way you approve. Isn't that really why you are here? Isn't your idea that the way of putting out a fire is to pour gasoline over it? I think you're a master at that game. But you know what? I don't give a damn.

PS: Both items you object to where used against me - when I was previously blocked. So they are within WP guidelines. The "scale" was used (by an Administrator) to evaluate me when I was editing Philosophy. By the way, your position on that scale is somewhere in the middle. So I hope you feel better. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot understand how someone can justify an indefinite ban on the grounds that:

you are sometimes a little bit annoying,

have a different opinion to some other people, and

have poor editing style (i.e. making 15 small edits, rather than 2 larger ones followed by 2 small ones to correct errors)

In the short time I have known you on Wikipedia I have grown to respect you, even when you were being annoying. I disagree with the decision taken.

Best wishes for the future.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your observation, my "cousin" from Ukraine. I'll miss you too, besides the other kind editors above. I was hoping you could teach me some of your techniques in setting up those lovely charts - but I never got a chance to ask you about that. And of course, I remember you acute observation about that place where the "bullies" run the show. So I will definitely miss working with you. But the hypocritical "administrators" don't really care about that - like the one who told me that he was "holding a gun to my head." He obviously has no sensitivity to language, and is a "jerk" who does not deserve to be an Administrator. And if Jimbo Wales want to keep him here, that I'm glad to be out of here - but I will miss you - and of course, that makes that "jerk" administrator, and his side-kick, very, very, happy to have Blocked me indefinitely - for calling a "jerk" what he called himself, with the assistance of his "Blueboy." Let them enjoy each others company - I'm glad to be out of here. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, your comment on my Talk page came while I was away from Wikipedia, and I haven't gotten back until just now. I'm sorry to see you were blocked, and wish you the best of luck. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. It's individual editors like yourself who really count. I appreciate your response. Have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am exceptionally saddened by this sad news. How could a barnstar reciever like you deserve to be banned? Hope to see you again soon, working collaboratively with Wikipedians and its staff.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten} 14:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'm touched by your support. I wish you the best. At this moment, it's responses like yours which are meaningful to me - it's more important than editing Wikipedia. To be quite frank, I'm not that motivated to return to Wikipedia. Being labeled "disruptive" is extremely disruptive. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

New section

Please appeal the block Ludvikus. Don't feed the fire, even on your talk my friend. If you do then you become no better than the people trying to incite you. I can guarantee there are others sympathetic to your situation that have the ability to over rule this absurd block. - 4twenty42o (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. But you're mistaken, I think, on three (3) counts:

This is my own Talk page. So I cannot be "Disruptive" by my addressing, appropriately, the discussants here. This is not a Talk page of an Article. And I'm following the Rules (most of which are such that they are subject to Consensus interpretation anyway - which means that the rules say what the Consensus {in power} say it means).
I think you are un-aware that Wikipedia is Ruled by the Whim of Powerful Administrators. And if you piss them off - as I have - there's no way in Hell you'll get un-Blocked. It has very little to do with the "Good of the Encyclopedia." It has more to do with you obeying those who "hold a gun to your head."
Furthermore, you must understand the sociology of this Mafia-like organization. One of the rules is that no Administrator will over-ride another. So unless I humble or humiliate myself (or do something else which takes a lot of effort on my part to sensor) you will NEVER be un-blocked. Do you understand what I'm saying? What these creepy characters really do is attract mediocrity, or boot-lickers. But I'm not into that sort of thing ("not that there's anything wrong with it" for two consenting adults, for example). --Ludvikus (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, I really do. But I really do believe that there is a better way of dealing with this. I strongly urge you to appeal this decision. If you piss someone offf bad enough they can lock your talk page as well. Then there is no way to get unblocked. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And that's exactly what they want. If you look carefully, I'm being bated, provoked above. It does not matter that these characters are violating WP:No Personal Attacks. They are immune - because the Consensus is not in my favor. So they are Confronting me just to get me to say something which will get my Talk page Blocked. You are too innocent a person to understand that. You see, they are afraid of me. But I don't really care. If I get Blocked because of their violation of Wikipedia rules, so be it. There is something very powerful to the stories of Socrates, or Jesus, or Gandhi - not that I'm them (I'm probably now subjecting myself to the attack of delusions of grandeur). But a lesson that follows from that is - do the right thing even if it kills you. But a mere cyberdeath is easy to accept - especially if you don't care about being in an environment where these characters really dominate. Sorry, my friend, but there is no other way to survive here at Wikipedia, that's one of the many useful things I learned, thanks to the Genius Jimbo Wales. But he probably doesn't know this situation. He's got other things to worry about. On the other hand - do you think, maybe, I'm a friend of his, checking things out for him? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: By the way, remember that the Reason I'm Blocked Indefinitely is that I'm a "Disruptive." If yo read this page, does it look like I'm unable to keep order? You should remember this - if there's nothing wrong that you do - there's always Catch 22. Also, do I look like I'm mediocre in my encyclopedic abilities? Obviously not, right? Do you think, maybe, I'm too good for Wikipedia? According to Administrator User:Jpgordon I am. He said I should go someplace else. And you know something, he's right.

--Ludvikus (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Check this quote out, if you want to know how Wikipedia Rules really work:

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. 'Orr' was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," Yossarian observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

--Ludvikus (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I know Ludvikus through joint research projects via email lists. He is a very scholarly and honest man and has contributed very well to Wikipedia. I hope and strongly urge that he will be unblocked. Ybgursey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ybgursey (talk • contribs) 22:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

New World Order (conspiracy theory)

Hello Ludvikus. You'll be happy to know that we have significantly improved the History of term section of the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article in way that I hope satisfies your wish that the article offers a more historical presentation of New World Order conspiracism. --Loremaster (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The New World Order - by H. G. Wells.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The New World Order - by H. G. Wells.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. For this one at least. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:1923_75p._Title_p.-_PSM_-_The_Britons_-Marsden.jpg

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Ludvikus! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 6 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Chia-Hsiung Tze - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Keith M. Wilson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Lisa Vives - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Colin Holmes (British historian) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Robert H. McNeal - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Elizabeth A. R. Brown - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I'd like to make the corrections required by the BOT. I'm no longer interested in substantial discussions on Talk Pages with another Editor(s), or Administrator(s) which has led to Blocking. And I plan to spend very little time at Wikipedia. That should eliminate the possibility of being accused of being "Disruptive." --Ludvikus (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No matter what you would like to do, you need to address the reason for your block. "I plan to spend very little time" is not very persuasive. See WP:GAB. Sandstein 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I've prodded these articles, so they will be soon either sourced or deleted, and the BLP problem thus resolved. Sandstein 22:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

The reason for my Block was "Disruptive." If I spend very little time at Wikipedia, there will, therefore, be no "Disruption." By very little time I mean no more than a few hours per week or month. So there will not be disruption. I hope this addresses your concern regarding addressing the "Reason" for the "Block." --Ludvikus (talk) 5:26 am, Today (UTC+0) *PS: To the best of my recollection, the Blocking Administrator felt insulted by me - so he Blocked me. My Block Originated from a dispute over One Article - and I have no interest in that article anymore - I have no interest in editing it; and if I do, I'd make a small, constructive comment, and not go back again. So I think I know how to avoid that issue - which got me blocked. I know whom to avoid - there's One Editor in particular who engaged me in disputes. So I know where the potential problem could occur - and I'll avoid that. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Sorry, your reasoning that you spend little time means there will be no disruption is asinine and it doesn't address or persuade me that you understand the initial concerns. If you truly wish to edit constructively in the future, then make a valid request detailing where you went wrong and how you'll avoid it, and also point out areas of Wikipedia you plan to contribute to and how you'll make a positive difference. Lastly, as for pointing the finger at others, consider WP:NOTTHEM. NJA (t/c) 10:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Information: last successful unblock request made on 19th granted on 21st September 2009. --PBS (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I've acquired the book, "American Revisionists" by historian Warren I Cohen (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1967). But I now know that Wikipedia editor Philip Baird Shearer [PBS] must be consulted in order to avoid the possibility of Disruption. What I didn't know before is that my Persistence (with another editor on a Talk Page, who provoked me by Insults, could lead to Disruption. The solution to that is Difference to or Wikipedia Respected & Influential editors, as well as avoidance of Persistence. Reduction in Time at Wikipedia is a way to accomplish that. One cannot be Disruptive if one spends substantially less time at Wikipedia than one did previously. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I also now own"Revisionist Viewpoints: Essays in a Dissident Historical Tradition" by James J. Martin (Colorado Springs: Ralph Myers Publishers, Inc., 1971 [1977]). --Ludvikus (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Ludvikus

Please accept my humble apologies for the extreme lateness in my reply. I can offer no excuse, but I got overwhelmed with various other projects in real life, so I have not been able to contribute very much in the last couple of months. Thank so much for your kind words, and please accept my apologies in taking so long to reply.

This may be straying into original research here, but I think the page on revisionism needs some comment about the politics of memory. Contrary to popular opinion, the idea of the historian is a pure, neutral observer who simply writes up the facts is bunk. History is not just writing up the facts. I don't much like E.H. Carr, and I think his whole theory about "facts of the past" and "facts of history" is bogus, but there is an element of truth there in that the historian does choose the facts he or she chooses to make use of. Personally, I think Carr's theory is wrong because there are some facts of history that are arguably more important then others. To counter Carr's point about millions crossing the Rubicon, but only Julius Caesar's crossing in 49BC is considered important by historians, the simple answer is Caesar's crossing was the immediate cause of a civil war, whereas the millions of others who have crossed the Rubicion did not had an similar impact on history. Having said that much, it is true that one can "prove" almost anything in history by a selective editing of the facts. Second, historians just don't record facts; they interpret and make sense of them. A chronologer will present you with a list of dates and events; a historian (or any rate a good historian) will make sense of them, and explain why this event occured, and how it ties in to another event that happens down the line.

Which brings us to the politics of memory. History may be politics, but there are definite political resonances to history in what people choose to remember and chose to forget about the past. To take a good example, in World War II, the German Army played a key role in the Holocaust, but after World War II, a certain narrative of history got presented in Germany which presented the Holocaust as entirely the work of the SS and the German Army as uninvolved. This amnesia had nothing to do with a lack of access to the necessary documents; anybody who had the time and willingness could had easily discovered that the German Army was up to its eyeballs in blood, but it was not until the 1980s that this really came out. Even then, it was largely the work of a brilliant Israeli historian named Omer Bartov that first brought up the matter of the Wehrmacht's massive involvement in the Holocaust. The popular picture of the Wehrmacht leadership as a bunch of civilized gentlemen appalled at the crimes of the SS is for the most part a total myth. The reasons for why this myth was created and sustained has nothing to do with scholarship, and everything to do with politics. Most people in Germany after the war wanted a version of history that presented the German Army as fighting a good war, and that is the version they got. True, only the most extreme actually tried to deny the Holocaust. Instead, there was a strategy that one might call Holocaust minimization. Most German historians were willing to admit that yes, there were terrible crimes under the Third Reich, but it was all the work of a few criminals in the SS entirely unrepresentative of German society, and that the overwhemling majority of Germans neither knew nor approved of what was going on. As early as 1957, Gerald Reitlinger commented upon this tendency to blame everything upon the SS by publishing a book entitled The SS, Alibi of a Nation. And the other part of Holocaust minimization was (and still is) is a strategy of claiming moral equivalence between the actions of the Allies and Axis. To present a popular example of this type of argument, the British fire-bombing of Hamburg is presented as being just as bad as Auschwitz, which allows Germans to claim that everything the Allies did was just as bad as what they did, and to present themselves as just as much victims of genocide as the Jews.

I have started writing an essay which I hoped to post in the next couple of days, in which I will lay out my thoughts out this further. Negationism to use the proper term for things like Holocaust denial (which contrary to the Holocaust deniers is not revisionism) are how people try to construct a version of the past that is congenial to their viewpoints, to create a history that makes them feel good about themseleves. Revisionism, in the proper sense of the term is the work of the historian in tearing down these myths and legends that make people feel good about themselves in order to confront the past, however painful it may be. So, somebody like Bartov who did and still does make a great many people in Germany uncomfortable by documenting the enormous and enthusiastic involvement of the German Army in the Holocaust is a revisionist because before he came along, not many people liked to talk about that. Somebody like David Irving who tries to spread the truly grotesque canard that six million Jewish people were not murdered in the Holocaust is a negationist.

Thank you for your kind words, and please accept my best wishes.A.S. Brown (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:41EFtNhvRZL. SS500 .jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:41EFtNhvRZL. SS500 .jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing new under the sun

There's a need for disambiguation here. It's from Ecclesiastes 1.9. I'm Blocked, so I can't do it. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: For example, look at Google's search result: [2]. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And now someone has undone it.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Straight

There is no distinct geometry article about this extremely important concept. For Euclid a straight line is a line which lies evenly with its points. I cannot write the article, or start a "stub" about it since I'm "blocked." --Ludvikus (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Reason for Block: User:Moreschi - you should realize that I was provoked, in this ""indefinite block" by the administrator who discussed "pointing a gun to my head." I complained about that, and that's why I'm blocked indefinitely. One way to avoid the accusation of being accused of "disruption" is to leave Wikipedia for a month at least when abusive language is used against an editor such as myself. One must realize that an editor who is not an administrator cannot possibly win an argument. And that arguing just opens one up for being charged with "disruption." Furthermore, one must not care too much about an article, or issue, at Wikipedia, if that results in any sustained persistence - because persistence itself can be used to justify the charge of disruption. Unfortunately, when one is Blocked the situation at Wikipedia is like it was during Stalin's reign of the Soviet Union, except that one does not get banished to Siberia, or summarily executed, you just get "Blocked," even "indefinitely." And you cannot win the argument by "pointing the finger" at someone else. So the only way to avoid being Blocked, is to avoid a Confrontation of those who even provoke one. So the only way to avoid being accused of being "disruptive" is to leave Wikipedia the moment one finds a persistent editor or administer who you feel is hounding you, or insulting you, or provoking you, or getting personal with you. For me, that means not really caring that much about Wikipedia: Make your edit, and when you find disagreement, don't try too hard to persuade others of your point of view. Since Wikipedia is open to the whole world, there's no way to guarantee "fairness" or "logicality" in a discussion or a "[civil] argument" - so let these others have their way [all expletives are deleted]. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

With this "I can't help it if other people piss me off" attitude we're better off leaving you blocked. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Ludvikus, you and I have always had a collegial relationship ... the best way to continue being blocked is to make Stalinist comparisons. You were probably eligible for the standard offer very shortly ... this unblock request, if you leave it as it is, will negate that. I suggest you rethink and rephrase. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You're one of the nicer people I've met at Wikipedia. And I thank you for you're sincere advise. However, as you can see, I'm continuously asked about my "disruption" as a condition of being re-instated (un-Blocked). The fact is that the immediate cause of my being Blocked was reacting to the Administrator who told me he was going to be "holding a gun to my head." If you look above, you'll find that the Administrators who refuse to un-Block me not because I'll no longer be "disruptive," but because they want me to give an explanation for why I was "disruptive" in my last block. The fact is that I was in a dispute with primarily one editor in the end, namely, User:Loremaster due to his abusive language on a talk page we were on. If you look above, he actually says some nice things about me after I was Blocked. I also have a nice relationship with quite a few editors who regret the fact that I was Blocked. Unfortunately, there are others - especially Administrators, who demand that I say, or admit, something which is not true. I'm aware that there is/are editors who worry that I'll "disrupt" the historical revisionism articles. But that should not happen - due to me, because I know who they are, and what their concern is, and I now own the books to which I can make exact references if I wish to participate in editing the concerned articles. But the fact is, that there is no interest in un-Blocking me, unless I say something about the last Block which I believe is untrue. Again - I was Blocked for one immediate reason: I allowed myself to be provoked by the Administrator who said he would be "holding a gun to my head." I should have ignored that inappropriate, provocative, remark directed at me by that Wikipedia Administrator. The more general reason for my Block for "disruption" was due to my conflict with User:Loremaster. I think you can figure out the situation better than most, because you are better informed, having been involved with me at the time. But others do not know the facts, and so I think they demand that I say something irrespective of the facts. I remember, from a previous Administrator at Philosophy, that the only really good response during possible alleged "disruption" is to put oneself on "leave" so to speak. Take a break for a week, a month, a year, whatever is appropriate. Unfortunately, that is not what the editors who refuse to un-Block me wish to hear. It does not appear to me as though the true current concern is with my not being "disruptive" in the future. Rather, the Administrators who refuse to un-Block me wish that I acknowledge the legitimacy of my last Block. Is that not so? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

PS1: Furthermore, I do not say: "I can't help it if other people piss me off." That's the reason the Adm. above gives for refusing to un-Block me. I say the opposite: I admit that my mistake was due to allowing myself to be provoked. So Administrator Daniel Case is clearly mistaken. I'm saying that I should avoid being provoked no matter how much I'm insulted or "pissed-off." If Daniel Case is truly a fair, and impartial Administrator, he'll reconsider and un-Block me - since that's the Reason he gives for refusing to un-Block me. He didn't give "Stalin" as the reason. So, yes, I can help it if someone at Wikipedia "pisses me of." The way to do it is to walk away. I keep saying that above: take a break from Wikipedia. That's the best way of dealing with being "pissed-off." --Ludvikus (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

PS2: Because I particularly respect you, Adm. BWilkins, I've taken your recommendation and edited out - by "striking out" the sentence above which makes a reference to Stalin, as you have advised me. Best regards to you personally, Wikipedian Wilkins. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

PS3: And here's the exact words (quoted) for my current Ban/Block by Adm. User:Moreschi

* Yes, I agree. Well, not with the arbitration bit. This is something we can and should handle ourselves. After reviewing history and reading this stupidly tortuous thread, I do not doubt Ludvikus' current good faith, but his total and utter incompetence in actually editing an encyclopedia is beyond a joke. Not to mention his incompetence in, y'know, relating to people. After good-faith concerns were raised, did he try to respond to them with any sort of compromise? No, just wikilawyered with layer after layer of meaningless, random text. He seems to be labouring under the unfortunate delusion that he cannot possibly be wrong, about anything: his content or his conduct. And this is after upteem million second chances.

* Ultimately such editors are totally unsuited for a collaborative encyclopedia, and would be best off in their own wikia-based fork. This is one of those times when good faith is not sufficient. I propose a community ban, and will implement it myself shortly unless there are any serious objections. Moreschi (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How can one possibly respond to such an attack upon one's character without Wikilawyering? Who can tell me that? Am I supposed to say/admit that User:Moreschi is right, that I'm "utterly incompetent"? Isn't it impossible to respond to this reason given for my current Block? Notice that there's a demand that I explain my Block/Ban. Should I say that I'm "utterly incompetent," but I should be un-banned anyway? Clearly, Wikipedia has made it impossible for me to respond in a rational way, since it is absurd for an "utterly incompetent" editor to request to be reinstated anyway. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Again - the reason for my being Blocked/Banned is "utter incompetence" in editing, as well as being unable to relate to other people. Those are the reasons given by Mordechai, the Blocking Administrator. He says that I suffer from a delusion: "that I cannot be wrong." Am I required to admit my "delusion"? But if I do, than I shouldn't be re-admitted - un-banned. Editors who suffer from delusions that they cannot be wrong cannot work with other editors. But if I deny this alleged "delusion" of mine, than I'm not admitting my mistakes, right? So what's the correct response to Mordechai? I know now that a reference to Stalin, or Nineteen Eighty Four is also un-acceptable by Wikipedia standards. So what possible way is there to be un-banned under the reason given by Banning Administrator User:Mordechai? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

One of my friends works for a company where they have something called a spectrum rating. If you are made orange it means you have to show improvement within a year or you will either have to find a different lesser job within the firm or dismissed on the grounds that you are incapable of performing your job adequately. It is a vicious system and allows the management to demand subservience. My friend was made orange. The 'director' responsible told him that it was like the book 1984. The 'director' said that it was not enough to do what big brother told you to; you had to want to do what big brother ordered you to, and believe it was the best thing to do. It turned out that the 'director' believed that big brother was the hero of the book 1984.

If you worked for a company like that you would learn interpersonal skills that would make you a better Wikipedia editor.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Toddy1. How are you? It's nice to hear from you. Did to ever read that book from cover to cover? It's also available online as a YouTube. But the book is better I think. And did you read Animal Farm, also by the same author, George Orwell? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No I have not read 1984. It says much about the way of the world that some companies have people in charge who regard big brother as a role model.

I have read Animal Farm, whilst I am sure that Napoleon was intended as the villain, it seems clear that nobody in the book was intended as a hero. However if you want, you can read the book in a different way - not as an analogy with the Soviet Union, but as an fable in which the natural order or things reasserts itself after the disruption of the revolution.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Good observations. I think that Wikipedia is even harder than all these examples - of "why can't we all just get along" - because: (1) You don't know who is a Big Brother until after you've already been admonished by one, by which time it's too late (a Big Brother at Wikipedia is never wrong, and if s/he is, s/he will never admit it). And (2), you never know what it is that you did that was wrong. If there's nothing specific, you can be accused of "disruption" - that just probably means that you used up too many bytes on a page that's distasteful to a Big Brother. Again - I'm accused by Adm. Mordechai of "utter incompetence" and lacking "interpersonal skills." That's the reason he gave for blocking me. How one could possibly get un-banned from such an attack on one's person I cannot figure out. And no one seems to be able to tell me - except that Stalinism is inappropriate. And if I say that (1) It's not true that I'm "utterly incompetent" or that (2) I lack "interpersonal-skills" than I'm not admitting my mistake(s), right? Oh - and now I'm Wikilawyering. There really is no way out - out of a Black hole. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)