User talk:Ludvikus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:22, 16 October 2009

Archives
from	2006 August 28
Archive 1 to	2007 September 25
Archive 2 to	2008 April 24
Archive 3 to	2008 May 3
Archive 4 to
Archive 5 to
Archive 6 to
Archive 7 to
Archive 8 to	2009 September 1

Reg: User:Gaunkars of Goa

No you haven't accused me yet.

You have made a suggestion of accusation,

which is basically an accusation without any substance to back it up,

giving the accuser a backdoor to run away when he cannot prove the accusation.

And let me point that everybody on Wikipedia considers themselves to be neutral,

even convicted POV-pushers.

I'm not surprised too, that you have made a "suggestion of accusation" that I have brought nationalist battle to Wikipedia.

I am used to editors from the West thinking that they are neutral whereas everyone else is biased.

Nor am I surprised that you have been accused of disruptive behaviour.

I guess that is why you are sympathetic to GoG.

You probably see him as (like yoursef) a victim of an unfair disruption charge.

Which, IMHO puts a big question mark on your claim that you are neutral in this dispute.

Its no surprise that an admin told you that you don't know how Wikipedia works.

I avoided saying that the last time, out of politeness.

For someone who's been here for more than three years you haven't even learned to use the preview button,

as is evident from your multiple, self-correcting edits.

You have offered to teach GoG how to "avoid being blocked" instead of offering to teach him "how to become a good editor".

Which again puts a big question on your mentoring abilities .

Regarding your "suggestion of accusation" that I am involved in a content dispute,

have you bothered to see if any other editor agrees with his points?

Even better why don't you verify for yourself GoGs claims.

Or would your rather satisfy yourself with suggestions of accusation?

If you feel that I have not acted within the rules of Wikipedia,

do make an RfC or request administrative intervention against me.

But not before you have checked the facts for yourself.

--Deepak D'Souza 04:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down!

You're obviously extremely upset.

If I made some mistake, I will definitely acknowledge it.

There is no "emergency."

I want us all to get along.

The fact is you've now turned on me and are engaging in a Personal Attack on me.

First of all are you the Blocking Administrator who said that User:Gaunkars of Goa "smells of rotten sea weed"?

--Ludvikus (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, OK, let's rumble = (slang) A street fight or brawl.!!!

No dear.

You are the one who is upset.

Because you haven't been able to prove anything you have said.

And by pointing this image of a boxer and asking me if I would engage in a fight with you, aren't you threatening me with a fistfight?

So much for your talk of not being provoked easily and of good faith.

And can you please remind me where I have said that GoG "smells of rotten sea weed" Remember you need proof before you make any accusations.

--Deepak D'Souza 05:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That picture on the right is a joke. Too bad you didn't understand it as such.

Question (for the second time): Are you the Blocking Administrator who said that User:Gaunkars of Goa "smells of rotten sea weed"?

Possible answer 1: is YES.

Possible answer 2: is NO.

The other possibilities for an answer: Break up the question into two parts, and answer each part separately.

I'm looking forward to your response.

--Ludvikus (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Here's the Diff regarding "smells of rotten sea weed": [1]. --Ludvikus (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man ,you are amazing! Do you see my signature anywhere on that page? And where does Gaunkaar's name figure on that page? Then what was your basis for claiming that I said "smells of rotten sea weed"? --Deepak D'Souza 10:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses here, (1) failure to answer my simple questions my two questions after, after I've asked the twice, and (2) your Personal attacks on me, criticism of my WP technical skills, sarcasm, study of my past record regarding whether I was disruptive, etc., indicates that it's pointless at this time to answer your questions, so I'll simply ignore you until you address me in a civil, non-confrontational, non-provovative, and non-disruptive manner. --11:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Deepak D'Souza ??? -- Correction: --Ludvikus (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The diff is on User talk:LessHeard vanU, not the talk page of User:Deepak D'Souza. The section starts as a critisism of the wording placed in the block log by User:LessHeard vanU when blocking User:69.159.84.182. Are you sure that Deepak D'Souza also wrote those words? -- PBS (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million!!! User:Philip Baird Shearer, a.k.a. PBS. Appreciate extremely your helpfulness. As you can see from the above, I certainly am not sure regarding the question you raise. However, I'm now sure about one thing for sure: if User:Deepak D'Souza had ANY say in Gaunker of Goa's being Blocked, or Banned, the Ban or Block should be immediately Rescinded. That I'm sure of now 100%. I hope this Helps us all to make Wikipedia a better place. I suggest that Deepak D'Souza be Blocked for 24 hours for failure to assist us all in determining whether or not the above user should be Blocked. Thanks again for helping me identify the issue. Have a nice day (as a friendly aside, I do look forward eventually to editing the nine [9] historical revisionism articles, but you can be sure I'll be extremely careful in not appearing to violate ANY WP rule, even by mistake - I'll be extremely cautious). --Ludvikus (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The Blocked user herein [of Goa] had multiple IP accounts, as well as multiple Blocks or Unblock histories, as I understand it, so I was trying to trace those. In addition, there was discussion exactly where you found it. But I didn't bother to go into great detail, because I was already quite convinced that opponent Deepak D'Souza himself did not come into this WP Battle with clean hands. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ::::::::First of all, why have you imitated my signature above this line?.
    Secondly, I did not study your past records (not that it is not allowed),
    but you yourself declared [2] that you had been called disruptive in the past without anyone having asked you to do so.
    Why then do you complain that I have researched your past.
    If you feel I have made any personal attacks ,
    please report it to the administrators.
    Of course first make sure you have the right diffs unlike your "rotten seaweed" thing up above.
    If you make a charge against another person it is your duty to prove the charge;
    dont ask them to prove that they haven't done what they are charged with.
    You are charging me with sarcasm and disruptive behaviour.
    IMHO you have indulged in veiled treats with your not-at-all-funny boxing joke in which you have accused me of wanting a fistfight.
    And your request that I should be blocked because I do not agree to unblocking a blocked user is weird.
     --Deepak D'Souza 12:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answers & Questions:

(1) I did not "imitate" your "signature." You are required to WP:Assume good faith. ..... Ludvikus (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(2) What's the relevance of a third party's past alleged disruptiveness to whether or not User:Gaunkars of Goa is capable of being a good Wikipedian? ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose is there in your raising that issue when the third party editor tells you he's WP:Neutral? ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no different than asking: "How many times do you beat your wife?" - don't you agree? ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing an editor's past alleged disruptiveness where the issue is irrelevant is a WP:Personal attack and extremely WP:Disruptive - don't you agree? ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(3) You say above: "If you feel I have made any personal attacks, please report it to the administrators." OK, I will. ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(4) You say above: "Of course first make sure you have the right diffs ..." OK, I will. ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(5) You say above: "If you make a charge against another person it is your duty to prove the charge." That's true. ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(6) You say above: "don't ask them to prove that they haven't done what they are charged with." OK, I wont. ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(7) You say above: "You are charging me with sarcasm and disruptive behaviour." Yes I am. ..... Ludvikus (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(8) You say above: "In My Humble/Honest Opinion" [=IMHO] "have indulged in veiled treats with your not-at-all-funny boxing joke in which you have accused me of wanting a fistfight."

(a) This is certainly not a display of a humble honest opinion. I'd describe it as a provocative, confrontational, and disruptive choice of words.

(b) There is nothing "veiled" about what I've said.

(c) I've made no threats.

(d) You obviously were, and still are, in a "fight" with me.

(e) I'm sorry I wasn't able to make you laugh.

(f) I'm not "accusing" you, I'm stating an obvious fact.

(g) The fact is that we are in a "fistfight", speaking metaphorically.

(9) You say above: "And your request that I should be blocked because I do not agree to unblocking a blocked user is weird."

I don't now if "weird" is the word I would use.

But since you got my request completely wrong,

the issue you raise is purely academic, the characterization false, and the point irrelevant. ..... Ludvikus (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS1: Because the image of the boxer disturbs you, and because you did not appreciate my joke, allusion, and metaphor meant to imply that Wikipedia is a space in which we do battle, and engage the the war of ideas of ideas I do apologize to you, ask for your forgiveness - and I am immediately deleting or removing said image of Bare-knuckle boxer John Lawrence Sullivan. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, I will keep everthing else aside and focus on your apology. You apology leads me to beleive that you honestly meant it as a joke; not as a threat. I'm sorry for having misunderstood it and taking it as a threat. Peace. --Deepak D'Souza 05:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

0 Great. Let's keep talking. I respect the fact that you are able to apologize to me. Too few human beings are able to do that. I apologize to you too for upsetting you by that image. I just meant that we fight here with words. No wonder there's no Peace in the real word. What I would like ery much is for us both to have a civil discussions in the future. I know nothing about Goa. Regarding India, I have great respect for its great and ancient Civilization - especially since it gave us Nothing, Zero !

Looking forward to your reply. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: At Wikipedia there's too often a battle of words, instead of ideas. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feature article review

I have nominated The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Notifying you since you are the top editor by edit count. -Verdatum (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great User:Verdatum. But it still needs some work, fine-tuning. For example: I own a photocopy of the typescript which was circulated in 1919, in the United States in government circles. Legally, it means it was "published." But if you consider a typescript to be merely a manuscript, the it was published in book form a year later, in 1920.

PS1: I'm pleased that you've notice that article. I'm also pleased by experiencing now the unique pleasure of meeting a particularly intelligent Wikipedian - you.

PS2: Thought I'd mention that I glanced at your own external quasi-Wikipedian Web cite. Might ask you about it sometime later.

--Ludvikus (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid editing other people's comments as you did here. It goes against WP:TALK. -Verdatum (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single word was changed! I simply followed: WP:Refactoring for readability. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote,

Previously, summarizing to condense a talk page was a non-conservative refactoring method. Especially since 2006, the Wikipedia community has more and more preferred wholesale archival of talk page discussions instead of summarizing, as archival preserves a fuller record of discussion, does not lead to accidental (or disruptive) misrepresentation of other editors' opinions, and does not inadvertently remove material that may turn out to be needed later.

The only thing refactoring discusses is "poor formatting". Just because comments aren't enumerated in a way you like doesn't mean they may be reformatted. -Verdatum (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the enumeration is a change, and some might call it significant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion. I say that enumeration not significant. As you say, "some" might call it significant. But most might not. The one who counts in this is Verdatum. And I would like to here him on that. Anyway, I did it in WP:Good faith. I don't know you you're budding in into a matter that concerns Verdatum. I will apologize to him if he objects. It can be easily remedied by posting his original block. Anyway, I will not do it to him or you in the future since you might not like it. But you must agree, 100% that my version is far better!!! And that's what counts. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"better" counts for articles, not for discussions. When you add content to an article, you don't own it, others can edit it freely. When you make a comment, the comment is yours. When you modify someone else's comment, you are changing it's tone to something the user may have not intended. I know you meant no harm in your edit; and I chose not to revert it because your replies count on that enumeration, so your replies would no longer make as much sense. Plus it didn't bother me much, I was just giving you some advice. Guidelines for editing others' comments may be found at WP:TPOC. In this usage, the concept of refactoring is a subset of editing. -Verdatum (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Verdatum, we only talking about the enumeration of your proposal made in that Talk article. Why are you switching to a discussion of ownership of Content articles? What does ownership of articles have to do with anything? I certainly appreciate your advice. But I hope you realize that, as I believe, Arthur Rubin is an Administrator and he's here merely fishing for an excuse to get me Blocked from Wikipedia. I have no reason to believe in his Good faith anymore - especially since he's done nothing to put Loremaster in his place. And since he (Arthur) cannot find anything against me, he's here complaining about my "enumeration." But what counts for me is having a good working relation with you, Verdatum. So tell why you're flip-flopping on me. What's the beef? Where do you get the idea that someone thinks he owns an Article? I KNOW! You're confusing me with Loremaster, who owns New World Order (conspiracy theory). You realize that now, of course? Please let me know. And if I care about anyone - it's you. But are you afraid to be my Wiki Colleague because - let's say no one else is? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Here's the essence of the rule you cite: "Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." I neither struck nor deleted any comment of yours. But I'll keep in mind your sensitivities in the future (if there is a future). --Ludvikus (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.

I understand now 100% how to avoid [being blocked] - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor. Do those words sound familiar, Ludvikus? Now, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 22:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, User:Malik Shabazz, the editor who was substantially involved in my getting Blocked for two (2)! Welcome to my Talk page. What can I do for you? What's the relevance of your remark about? Are you trying to provoke me into a Confrontation with you? You tell me what you think the right response to your remark above should be? What is it that you want from me? And what, if anything, do you know about the subject of this discourse, in which you've just interjected yourself? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I merely try my best to stay neutral in my edits. I do this by following the policies and guidelines. When you edited other users' comments, it appeared to me as though you had a misunderstanding of the talkpage guidelines, so I put a cordial note on your talkpage. There's nothing wrong with misunderstanding or being uninformed on guidelines. After all, there are a lot of them, and it's better for the project if users be BOLD rather than walk on eggshells over this stuff.

I didn't mean to imply that you didn't understand that users don't own articles, I meant to imply that users do own their comments. Other users' comments shouldn't be changed in ways that might be against that user's wishes. I have no problem assuming good faith here; perhaps you didn't realize that anyone would find fault with such a simple edit as adding some numbers. That's fine. Again, I simply left you a note to communicate, "yes, people here do mind such things."

I'm not going to touch whatever issues you may have with Arthur. You shouldn't be concerned about being blocked so long as you continue to try to discuss edits, and not the editor, and you follow proper dispute resolution. -Verdatum (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much User:Verdatum. I appreciate and accept your explanation. And I hope to mlearn from it. But now let me tell you the reality of how life really is here at Wikipedia regarding my person. Above is the unsolicited interjection of "Don't be a dick" User:Malik Shabazz. He's the editor who substantially caused me to be Blocked for two years. When I came back after exiled for two years and made a mistake regarding an alleged, unintended POV Fork regarding historical revisionism articles, and was Restricted, this WP:Hounding, User:Malik Shabazz, voted for the Restricting, announcing his knowledge about how I would behave. Now this "Don't be a Dick" is back. Can you please advise me what the right thing for me to do, in the light of the fact that I promised not to engage in a Confrontation with any editor? What purpose has he in interjecting himself about a conversation between you and me? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ludvikus, please take a look in the mirror. The only person to blame for getting you blocked for two years is ... you. It was your disruptive behavior, on dozens of pages, that earned you a block—your third lengthy involuntary vacation from Wikipedia, I might add. Please stop making pretend it was my fault. If you're honest with yourself, deep down you know it wasn't.

Evidently you were lying when you asked to be unblocked, because you've been involved in one confrontation after another. If you continue down this road, I promise you that I'll bring the matter to AN/I.

Finally, please read Don't be a dick. Calling another user a dick means that you, too, are a dick. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 05:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go away! Stop WP:Hounding me.

@@ Line 205: / Line 205: @@
 ::Evidently you were lying when you asked to be unblocked, because you've been involved in one confrontation after another. If you continue down this road, I ''promise'' you that I'll bring the matter to AN/I.
 ::Finally, please read [[m:Don't be a dick|Don't be a dick]]. Calling another user a dick means that you, too, are a dick. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]]&nbsp;{{toolbar|separator=dot|[[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] | [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]] }} 05:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
+:::Go away! Stop [[WP:Hounding]] me.