This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ludvikus/Archive_2.
Please be more careful when creating your own archive!!!!!!
Why did you move my archive page to your user space? You took my history with it and destroyed my archive. Now all I have is a redirect to your page. I can't recreate it without deleting the existing page and moving your archive back after I revert it. Thanks a lot. Why didn't you just copy the page?
I am going to ask User:Gwernol for help in fixing this problem.
If you don't fix this by the time I login tomorrow, I may fix it for you. I would rather you did it yourself. That way you control the name of the template, wording, layout, and so on.
I have moved the archive back to Will's talk page where it belongs. Please do be more careful in the future. This could easily look like vandalism. Thanks, Gwernol03:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gwernol fixed the problem almost instantly. I was barely done adding my request when it was complete. Please note that I added a comment to the next item. If you use that system, it will create the archive page for you. Use my archive settings as an example. Use the code from George's page, but where I have my username, put yours instead. -Will Pittenger03:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change what others wrote in talk pages
Please don't change what other users wrote in talk pages. When you suggested that I add {{User wikipedia:RC Patrol}}, you edited an existing section rather than using the + tab. You also reformatted the section using ----. As I have repeatedly told you, most editors frown on use of ----, including me. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at it again, i think you may have misconstrued; the "The article deteriorates ... gets gutted before the first period." comment was some random anonhole. I couldn't resist adding "The Protocols of the Elders of the Non-Goyim suggests just such a strategy!!" in an attempt to out-satirize him. Gzuckier17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff
You may want to check out WP:USERBOX. Also, the "Sixtyseven" is because my last name starts with "S".
I see you've restored the original content at Praemonitus Praemunitus and eventually put the disambiguation back at Praemonitus praemunitus. Since I think you intended to make the former about the book, I removed the other content from that page and left a link to the disambiguation. I'm not sure whether we need an article about that edition of the book or whether it should be merged to Protocols of Zion - what do you think? (Reply here, or on the article talk page, or on my talk page, whichever you like; I'm watching all of them.) --Alynna21:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is already a practice of WP have articles on historically important books. Unfortunately, this ugly and stupid book has seen the light of day and - like a germ, bacteria, or virus, has reproduced itself in many forms - and now lives on the WEB. So I want Wikipedia to be, inter alia, the ultimate source of facts about this plagiarism.
Also, I believe that Wikipedia is extremely democratic in its nature, so that what its founders want it to be, and what it is already becoming, are two different things. In brief, WP is becoming the ultimate (at least) source of knowledge for the commom man (and woman) about anything which holds a significant interest for people.
I wish I could write like Lincoln, or D'Israeli in my first draft, but I cannot. English, like in the case of Conrad, was not my first language. But he had a linguistic genius of the kind that's not mine.
So I hope to get the asaistance of other WP editors and writers to improve or develop my articles further!!!
Okay, I wish you luck in writing more about that edition. I don't know anything about it, but I'm always available for cleanup and wikification questions. Happy editing, Alynna23:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox Book
{{infobox Book | <!-- See [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels]] or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Books]] -->
| name = Night
| title_orig = Un di Velt Hot Geshvign
| translator =
| image = [[Image: Deleted: NightWiesel.jpg|150px|''Night'']]
| image_caption = English edition cover
| author = [[Elie Wiesel]]
| illustrator =
| cover_artist =
| country = [[Argentina]]
| language = [[Yiddish language|Yiddish]]
| series =
| subject = [[Autobiography]], [[Holocaust]]
| publisher =
| release_date = 1958
| english_release_date = 1960
| media_type = Print ([[paperback]])
| pages =
| isbn = ISBN 0-553-27253-5
| preceded_by =
| followed_by =
}}
It's a little bit goofy, but certainly Warhol himself wouldn't mind (you know, it might be incautious to suppose anything about what he would think). I don't think you'd get community approval but you could certainly try by bringing it up on the talk page. As a related idea, has there ever been a portrait done of Warhol that is multiple? I can't think of one, but maybe there is ... Antandrus (talk)05:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't see why one can't be both a nature lover and an admirer of an artistic and media genius :). I'm as fascinated by his personality as I am by his work, and his story -- such as the Valerie Solanas episode -- is wilder than most fiction. As of the doubled pic -- I don't think it really helps anything, since our point is to make an encyclopedia article rather than a tribute page (in that case, if you were putting up a website about Warhol... definitely yes). Cheers, Antandrus (talk)06:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Rudolph_Valentino_1_-_Touchup.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rudolph_Valentino_1_-_Touchup.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:0803217277.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
When you create articles for peers it would help if you follow NC to keep them in standard format. ie Seymour Henry Bathurst should be at Seymour Henry Bathurst, 7th Earl Bathurst Alci1213:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Erk, that's my fault for copying an pasting from your original article to without checking the link. Sorry. The link needs to be in the format: forname surname, ordinal of title. But from within the article you list the names in full ie:
[[Seymour Bathurst, 7th Earl Bathurst|Seymour Henry Bathurst, 7th Earl Bathurst]] That code produces the link below which is the one within the article that remained red. Notice how the first part links to the actual proper location and the second is the bit you get read in the link:
I would't worry about typos in user talk unless the meaning is lost. Arms look good, at some point when I have time to kill I'll start adding the blazons to these Alci1216:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image redundancy
I believe I replaced identical images, see: Image:Umberto Eco Eco.jpg and Image:Umberto Eco.jpg. I cannot tell a difference between the two images, which is why I tagged the first as redundant. If there is a difference, you should explain the difference between the two on both pages and put {{hangon}} on the CSD image. But again, I think they are identical which is why I swapped them in the article. --MECU≈talk18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for Image:Figure 5.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Figure 5.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
RE: Octothorp Dispute
I have briefly looked over the issue in question, and it appears that Dicklyon does not oppose inclusion of the term Octothorp, however he does seem to take issue with your persistance of putting a heavier emphasis on (what appears to be) a more obscure term. The trend on Wikipedia is to name articles by their most common name, to make finding of information as easy as possible for someone who is not as versed in the technicalities of a specific subject. A perfect example is Elephantidae. This much longer and less commonly-known name redirects to what we commonly call the Elephant. While the former is the "proper" name, we instead go with the common name, as it's more easily remember. Now, in the case of Octothorp vs. Number sign, we are using what is much more commonly known. Until this dispute, I had personally never heard of the term "octothorp." This being said, can you see why other users would be hesitant to put such a heavy emphasis on this terminology, given its lesser-known usage?
Also, it is my personal policy to not interfere with a dispute, as it tends (more often than not) to show a more biased mediator who is coming on behalf of one party in a complaint. I therefore urge you to file an official Request for Mediation where this matter can be better sorted out.
The Title of the Red book is Sionskie protokoly = Zion's protocols or Protocols of Zion. The word Sionskie is the adjective formed from the word Sion=Zion. A similar adjective from the word Zionist Russian: Sionist is Sionistskie (Сионистские). It is quite possible that in the beginning of the 20th century Zion meant not only the place but the Zionism as well (see e.g. Hovevei Zion).
The title of the yellow book is the same but written in the pre-1918 orthography. On the top there is Publishing House of His Excellency Prince I.K. Gorchakov "Down with the Evil". The the title. Then a photograph captioned as Jewish Government in Moscow and names (some are unreadable because of low resolution). In the bottom there is Paris and a year 19?7 (I cannot read the third digit) Alex Bakharev00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining this, Alex. I am pretty sure the yellow book's title is "Jewish Government in Russia" - not "in Moscow", and the year is 1927. Cheers. ←Humus sapiensну?11:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for Image:1978 Symbolic snake.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:1978 Symbolic snake.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Mrs._Leslie_Fry.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mrs._Leslie_Fry.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
There were many reprints, so I am not surprised of that. What is amazing to me is that it was printed by a Church & Red Cross printing press. BTW, did the French text help? My French is almost nil. ←Humus sapiensну?09:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Magician? It is the same page, simply cropped. I posted it the same day you have asked. Look, I am trying to remember where I got that image from. Earlier WP did not have such strict policy regarding images. Take it down if you think it is not credible, but asking the same question every day is not going to help. ←Humus sapiensну?00:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for Image:Scatto2 - Poetry Reading.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Scatto2 - Poetry Reading.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Lvives sm.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lvives sm.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with the page Philosophy on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Alan.ca13:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can move the article in this case, since the destination already exists as a redirect. I think you'll need to ask an administrator to do it, since it looks like the new article, as a redirect, needs to first be deleted. -- Hawaiian71716:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wisdom image
My problem with the image is that it was added to the talk page with no intelligible purpose. The talk page is for discussions of the content of the article, not for posting pictures. { Ben S. Nelson }Lucidish05:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases, there is a general ban on the deletion of on-topic commentary of other users. However, off-topic material is subject to removal. This falls under that category.
I understand that it was a spelling mistake, which happens. If you find you have created an article with the wrong title, you can move the page to a new title. If the article has already been written by someone else, you can include any new information in the new article, which leaves you with a redundant article (the one at the wrong location). If the title is a COMMON misspelling which many many people use, you can redirect it to the correct spelling to help others who are looking for the article at the wrong spelling (you do not need a redirect for every misspelling). Otherwise the article should be deleted rather than blanked because blanking leaves an entry in the encyclopedia which is of no value to anyone, clutters up the encyclopedia and causes a number of other problems. To have a page deleted which only you have contributed to, you can place the template {{db-author}} on the page, which places the article in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion which will be seen by an administrator and the page will usually be deleted. There are a number of other ways to have a page deleted, which are set out at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Due to a number of issues, pages can only be deleted by administrators.
Firstly, I don't know why the page '.' cannot be linked to or created, but this would be due to the MediaWiki software.
Regarding deleting a page, you personally cannot press a button to delete a page (neither can I), only users who have been given administrator rights can. This is because pages can only be deleted if they meet certain criteria or if they have the consensus of the community, and this is acted upon by an administrator. The administrator will have been trusted with the tools by the community and will be familiar with the deletion criteria and the general workings of the site. There would be a huge number of problems if everybody could delete pages (such as abuse by vandals, people involved in edit wars etc.) and the site would fall apart because articles would be deleted left, right and centre.
If YOU have created a page and YOU have been the only contributor, YOU can request to have it deleted by placing the {{db-author}} tag at the top of the page. This is one of the criteria for speedy deletion (G7), where the page can be suggested for deletion without discussion, which the deleting administrator agrees to (usually done within 24 hours, depending on the backlog). Otherwise, an article can be proposed for deletion (for uncontroversial deletions that do not meet the speedy criteria) or sent for discussion at articles for deletion, which take 5 to 7 days to complete. mattbr3021:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your message
Thanks for your message, and for the compliments. I'm trying to ease in to Wikipedia slowly, as I've got so many other commitments, which is partly why I've been avoiding articles that demand large amounts of time and emotional energy — and Philosophy is near the top of that list. I'll have a look (though I suspect I'll be depressed), but I don't know how much I'll get involved yet. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:906365 -Hadassa Ben-Itto-.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. MECU≈talk20:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one expects you to fly to Israel to take a picture of her. However, since she is alive, her location is generally known and she makes appearances, someone could take a free image of her that we could use. That is the definition of replaceable that Wikipedia uses. You can fight it, and dispute the tag, but it will be a wasted effort as it is quite clearly replaceable. Many have tried before, but as long as she's alive and this photo isn't unique in any way, it will be deleted like many others for this reason. You may not agree with it, but it is policy. --MECU≈talk22:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't keep images until someone keeps it. The thought is that by removing the image it will spur someone to get a free image because it's "missing", but while it is there, there's no "reason" to do so since it's already there. You can ask for permission, I forgot about that possibility. You can contact the copyright holder and ask if they will release the image under a free license; not for permission to use just on Wikipedia. "With Permission" uses are not valid either. We want it free, and if we can't have it free, we'll have nothing instead. You can get more advice and information about asking for release of the image by looking at: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Good luck! --MECU≈talk23:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You gave absolutely no specific reason for tagging the above first item for deletion.
Please do so immediately, or remove the tag as an error on your part. --Ludvikus 05:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
What does this mean?: Pure vandalism, including redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism. --Ludvikus 05:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It means that you created a page with absolutly no merit to get attention, well, congratulations, it worked.Dropal 05:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you are unaware of the offensiveness of calling someone childish who may be twice your age?
I notice you take pride in being a reformed Ex-Vandal.
Perhaps some education in good manners may be in order next?
Are you truly unaware of your commencing the insult?
Or is there some other reason for your misconduct which you are not MAN enough to admit? --Ludvikus 06:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Both of you need to calm down and remain WP:CIVIL please. Dropal, calling someone "childish" is inappropriate. Ludvikus, saying "are you not MAN enough to admit" is inappropriate. Both of these are personal attacks and I would ask both of you to stop before this escalates further. Thanks, Gwernol06:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ludvikus, in response to your questions on my talk page. On the Ruski commie article, if you can provide reliable sources to show it is not a neologism and that it has reasonably widespread use, please add those to the article and remove the {{prod}} notice. You have 5 days to do this before the article will be deleted. Regarding our policy on civility, its worth pointing out that you are expected to remain civil even if someone else is incivil to you. The aim is to avoid disputes escalating into slanging matches. In other words: "its only appropriate to respond in kind!" doesn't absolve you from your responsibility not to make personal attacks.
You asked "what remedy does on have against such ABUSIVE LANGUAGE?". You can politely ask the other editor to stop making personal attacks. We have standard warning templates such as {{npa1}}, {{npa2}} etc. you can use. If you continue to suffer from personal attacks you can eventually report the user at the personal attack intervention noticeboard. I would advise against going down this road in this particular instance, since you have engaged in some incivil behaviour yourself and because it is better to descalate the situation rather than inflame it further.
Finally, you asked "Who, and Why, was My TalkPage Deleted?" As far as I can see it hasn't been, assuming you are referring to this page. Wikipedia has been experiencing some server glitches over the last hour or so, its possible you saw a brief moment of that. If you are referring to a different page or I misunderstood the question, let me know. Good luck, Gwernol06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unspecified source for Image:Chalke - Sarah C. Chalke.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chalke - Sarah C. Chalke.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Postdlf04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've also disputed your claim to fair use, on the image's talk page, as your explanation neither complies with any conceivably valid legal claim to fair use, nor with our fair use policies. Postdlf04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal remarks on philosophy
I wanted to say a few things away from the main page because they don't relate directly to the discussion of philosophy. I hope they are taken in the spirit of peace.
First, my comments are not out of a desire to prove you wrong at all costs. I am not 'out to get you', nor am I one of those special people who whittle their lives away trying to intellectually dominate others over the internet. However, my comments are based on reasons -- reasons which you have, frankly, so far left either unaddressed, or seem to have misunderstood. The first case where you ignored me was when I pointed out how dialectics is a part of logic, and showed you why this seemed to be so, by invoking Aristotle's law. The second time, you mistook the critical reception to your "gave way" comment to be in reply to "assimilation". But "assimilation" cannot, as far as I can tell, be felicitously interpreted from the expression "give way"; and even if it could, that is demonstrably not the interpretation that we make. Yet you attributed the former interpretation anyway.
I can't force you to read, but I do expect it -- not just from you, but from everyone who wants to be taken seriously. This is a reminder that people from all walks of life need, including those who have tenure, who belong to MENSA, or (for that matter) work at Shopper's Drug Mart. I realize that you have good intentions, but a genuinely good will demands both good intentions and good conduct. The keystone to conducting oneself with a good will is that one must demonstrate an inclination to read for the purposes of understanding, and not just to emotionally react.
The reason these categories are in red is because they do not exist. The person who added them to this article may have made a typo or may have just assumed that such a category exists. Any time there is a link in red, it means that the destination page does not exist. I don't know enough about any of these categories to take on this project, but if you do, you can do it. Either way, the article should not have red categories. When I come back to work on Wikipedia in a few days, I'll delete the red categories if they still exist. CRKingston23:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophy
Debuckner has been around for a long time -- years. He knows his philosophy, but his goal has always been the same, to have this article state that Philosophy is another name for Western rationalism and that nobody has been a real philosopher who is not a follower of the ancient Greeks. In particular, he dismisses Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tze, etc. But, he certainly does sound, well, rational in his most recent posts so, assume good faith.
Yes, I understand about ratio/rational/Phythgoras/the music of the spheres/etc. All that is an important part of Greek philosophy, but should have a bare mention here under History with a link to History of Philosophy which links to Greek Philosophy. It really is not part of the definition of philosophy.
My rewrite of the intro, ages ago, said that Philosophy is the study of ideas that are universal, fundamental or central to human understanding. You can imagine how quickly that got reverted.
Have you seen The Coast of Utopia. I flew to NY to see parts 1 and 2 and will be back in about a month to see part 3.
Well no, the new image is dragon swallowing its own tail wich is a common depiction of an Ouroboros. Jfreyre
Jewish Bolshevism
The issue is not knowledge of English. The issue is fasts and terminology. In all languages I know "forgery" is defined as an attempt to present a supposedly authentic object of some origin while in fact the object is manufactured by another origin with an intention to deceive. Now, is it true or false that the authors of the protocols attemt to present them as authentic documents of a "Jewish cabal"? `'mikka17:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ludvikus, yes I do think you are very eccentric! And I think you can be rather obsessive too, in a way that alientates some other editors, but I certainly don't doubt your sincerity or genuine belief that you are improving the articles on which you work. And you have a very beautiful Veronese on your page, which works wonders for my state of mind every time I look at it! Paul B15:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mel Etitis
You say to him "Unless you are versed in Western philosophy, you cannot contribute in any significant way to the English language Wikipedia." Now you really are embarrassing yourself. Mel in actual life is a distinguished philosoper at the University of Oxford. YOu really are a FUCKWIT. I had to say that. Dbuckner18:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 18:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophy
Ludvikus, you do yourself a disservice by placing such tirades[64] on the talk pages. Try to keep to the topic. Consider what you might be willing to do in order to reach a compromise, because the Wiki works by consensus. That is the nature of the game. Banno04:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The editors you have disagreement with have been on the Wiki for a considerable length of time, and regardless of their standing in the real world have earned respect here because of the effectiveness and quality of both their editing of articles and their involvement on the Wikipedia community. Perhaps you might pause to consider why it is that you have attracted so much ire. You have been given the opportunity to compromise for the benefit of the article, and so demonstrate a vital Wiki skill. As it stands, the article will remain blocked indefinitely, which benefits no one. Banno05:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shrink Responds
HI Ludvikus. Thanks for your welcome. No, I haven't done any editing yet in Philosophy, I would
want to consult with some professors I have access to before doing that. I might get involved
in Hegel at some time in the future. I guess I accidently left out my signature on my posting:
sorry, I thought I had put it in. I would be happy to engage in the dialogue, in trying to support other editors in the philosophy section, as I rely heavily on philosophy in my work. I
think that I might agree with you about some of the concerns people have with psychiatry as a
profession, myself. People want a lot more from us than we are generally trained to do. While
we might be good at making a psychiatric diagnosis, there are a lot of pitfalls involved, and
people want answers from us about how to live, and what to do in society, and such. My view is
they need good training in philosophy, sociology, and other areas, besides just using the DSM IV. I will communicate with you, if you so desire, about the comments I made, and meant no
disrespect. I also, was not giving a diagnosis, I was having a personal reaction, and it may
have been impulsive or incorrect, so I apologize for any way it gets misconstrued. The issues
in the article are very complex, and require a lot of thought and study, so I will have to
gradually involve myself in the discussion, but I will make myself available to contribute as
best I can. Will be able to comment more a little later. Richiar07:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had to manage my sleep-wake cycle. I will be reviewing some recent Archives of the discussion in the immediate future so I can get the gyst (sp?) of the issues; could you give me a summary of the issues as you see them from your view? It has soomething to do with rationality vs irrationality of the definition of Philosophy? Richiar19:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophy
Thanks for your kind words, but I continue to be dismayed by the lack of progress. I ask that you focus on a spirit of compromise. It seems to me that everyone, myself included, is just repeating what has been said before. I would really like to move forward. Rick Norwood16:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (I think). I do not view either Philosophy, or Wikipedia, as therepy. I think Wikipedia is a good thing, and I am willing to work to make it so, but not to engage in unending debate. I've worked on hundreds of articles, and if Philosophy is hopeless, I'll move on to something else. Rick Norwood21:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you missed it, I had entered a message earlier and it might get buried in the mass of information:
No, no hemlock my friend: maybe a round of drinks for all for this fine discussion ! I have done slightly more research since my posting of yesterday, and now can respond to your message here. 1) I am not formally trained in philosophy, I have my hands full as it is, but I find I cannot function very effectively in this world without some grasp of philosopy, so I try to educate myself, and this Wikipedia effort is commendable. 2) I was not making an accusation as you state above, but experssing a personal concern that came from a momentary impression just at the time when I dropped into the discussion. I wish to now say publicly that I withdraw my concern, and that I am convinced the issues being discussed are from people with sound minds. The debate is legitimate, and the discussion is legitimate. There is some emotionally charged expression which may have rendered the appearance of fanaticism, which is what may have triggered my concerns, but a little bit of communication and research has cleared this up for me. I would formally like to withdraw the concern about Bipolar Disorder. Please, everyone do continue with your work on the discussion here. Richiar 02:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
At the time I jumped in, Dbruckner had just made an internal link to the Elders of Zion, and I
looked at that, and thought it seemed freaky; then I went to your user page, and saw all of these repetive links to Wittgenstein, and it felt like I had entered some freaky shrine, but then I noticed a connection to Andy Warhol, and perused some of the communications, and now I
feel quite at home: either everyone is as sick as I am, or we're all quasi-normal. Cheers for
philosophers !! I definitely think I can learn from you. Richiar06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I fail to see how any abridgment of this foul book could be anything other than racist? Or did you mean something else by your edit comment? Thanks! --BenBurch03:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was working on the Henry Ford article when I found that page. We had an editor there claiming that this book never existed. --BenBurch03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ack! Please don't copy and paste to move pages as you did to Book structure/Book parts. It breaks the history of contributors to an article, which we need to keep intact for legal reasons. I've tagged the pages to be repaired, an admin will get around to it soon.
Also, just fyi regarding talk:philosophy – the use of bold and/or all-caps really are considered to be, very literally, SHOUTING, when used in the majority of online forums/discussions. See All caps#Use on the internet. I strongly recommend not using them, unless you would be actually shouting the words whilst having the same discussion in a coffee-shop (i.e. hopefully never!)
If I might also add, please try to stick to the standard indenting methods, because constantly changing the indented depth is quite confusing, as in this thread, it's very hard to discern that all that text is from one person.
Add spaces between paragraphs instead, for contextual separation.
Hi Ludvikus. I have been busy dealing with a number of things in a linear
fashion, one thing at a time. I wanted to get back to you about a couple of
questions you left for me. I am just now getting around to them. The term
"fuckwit"- I have never heard of that. I surmise that it is a "neologism", made
up by the user himself. I surmise that it is a rearrangement of "dimwit" and "dickhead".
When I joined WP about 6 weeks ago, I was doing some wandering, and I
came across the following essay Wikipedia: Don't be a dick. I have some personal
tendencies to try to educate people that I think don't get the picture, so I put
the link on my talk page, for myself. I send this to you not as an act of
trying to "correct" you, but one that I use for myself. and to answer your
query about the term used upon you by another user.
About my psychological appreciation of the irrational, one of my favorite
authors is Erich Fromm; I have read all his books, and I don't think anyone
else does as fine a job as he in dealing with the issues of rational and irrational.
His emphasis is the productive character. I will give you a couple book references
in a day or two, I have to look them up. Best regards. Richiar05:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ir/rational
Why do you say:
User:Lucaas how come you just gloss over that you and I, and User:Rick Norwood agree with you on dropping Rational from the opening?
Can you ask this other alleged pseudonymous philosopy professor to give us an exact page citation in his published body of work regarding his views on his profound discovery that "Irrationality is sterile, impotent, pointless; from irrationality comes nothing."???
He replied on my talk page, so its a quite confusing dialogue just like this one. He told me he teaches Descartes meditations in Oxford, but he didn't even see how the irrational makes its appearance there! Sometimes these guys are just paying the mortgage. --Lucas21:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith
It would be well to assume good faith in your dealings with other editors; specifically, by not doubting their good intentions towards the article. For example, the parenthesise around "professor" imply some deception on the part of the other editors. If you wish to make an accusation of sock puppetry, do so; don't hint at it in such an uncharitable fashion. Do this in self-defence, as it is quite possible that the dispute will escalate into an RfC on yourself or some other editor, or even to arbitration. (incidentally, I don't think that this would count as sock puppetry for the purposes of the relevant guidelines, so I wouldn't recommend making the accusation). Banno22:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Noetica
Thanks for your note at my page, Ludvikus. It's all a bit cryptic to me, I fear. I don't want to enter into discussion with any editors much. I'll just watch, at Talk:Philosophy, and say no more for now. I appreciate the difficulties you are having, as I appreciate the difficulties others are having with the challenges you offer them. I'd like to leave it at that, now. All the best to you! – Noetica22:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know absolutely nothing. Nor do I have any references. I just connected every piece of information available on the Internet and in Wikipedia. His name was already included in the template {{Governors of Grand Duchy of Finland}}. The only real source was the article fi:Ivan Obolenski on the Finnish Wikipedia - which is even shorter than this. It does not list references either.
You can also thank Ghirla for bringing this to my attention. He was not sure if "Prince John Obolensky" ever even existed. -- Petri Krohn01:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mel
I find your comments on my talk page quite puzzling[65]. The evidence of bad faith on Mel's part is, to say the least, slim. You have no evidence that Mel is not what is claims; nor do you present any evidence in support of your claim that Mel "appears to have succeeded in giving more weight to his opinion merely because he claims to be a professor". Perversely, you claim that he exhibits bad faith in his lack of comment. The Wikipedia has benefited greatly from his support, and I will never be "embarrassed" to have awarded him a barnstar.
To quote from the guidelines:
This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith.
I have placed the emphasis on confirmed malicious sockpuppetry. Jimbo Wales has said: "There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason," and " ... multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort. For example, to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from public scrutiny." This is certainly not what has occurred. If you have evidence otherwise, you should report it at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Otherwise, you should refrain from what would appear to be a vindictive accusation.
I consider your comments on my talk page to be a fine example of bad faith, and should any action be pursued against you, I would feel obligated to bring this issue to attention.
Incidentally, it might be a good idea if you were to make use of the "Show Preview" button on the edit screen. Leaving a short message on someone's talk page should not involve five edits, even if it is not in your first language.
please remember Banno's comment on the talk page when he unlocked the article:
So have at it. But remember a few basics of men of good will. Don't just revert. Improve what is there, rather than just deleting it. Avoid personal attacks. Be polite. And Don't be a dick. "Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick yourself!"
He says do not revert. I didn't, I took the time to edit it, leaving most of what was there
in place and giving some of the points made on the talk page some breathing room.
Please do not just do a wholesale revert and try to reshape the article.
It is not the same as reverting. Reverting would have been to return it to the form it was in before that snappy change and lock took place on the 31st Dec. I left almost all the references there, I left the mention of knowledge, being and conduct (though I changed conduct to ethics), never really heard of conduct in philosophy except from a parent. I left the way the etymology was done in brackets, only removed word etymology, enought to say "from".
--Lucas13:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Ludvikus do not try and tell me what conduct means, I have been speaking the language for some time as have most of my ancestors. Conduct is a strange word on this page it is not a word that appears much in philosophy, usually we talk of ethics or morals etc.
I'm sorry but you will not convince me that "conduct" is a technical term of philosphy. The most general term is to be used in the intro and though you make many references, unlike me, you don't seem to have read much philosophy. I cannot ever remember seeing a book on philosophy called "such and such conduct etc." Almost always if they wish to use a general word they say ethics, or morals. Both of which have a long history. Conduct is just plain odd. Just try search a philosophy bibliography for "conduct", zero! And Ethics, well countless.
As to reverting, you did not read my post, I left all the references, changed a couple of words I did not revert.
Your comments at [66] are entirely inappropriate. Despite my warning[67] you persist in mounting personnel attacks against Mel. I am letting you know that any further personal attacks may result in your being banned. I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, especially:
A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. Examples include (but are not limited to):
* Personal attacks which place users in danger (See Wikipedia:No personal attacks)
* Persistent personal attacks
* Posting personal details
* Persistent copyright infringement
Mel is an administrator with several years experience on the Wiki, and doubtless has an excellent grasp of the way in which the Wikipedia works. You are a relative newcomer. I consider it one of my duties as an admin to ensure that you are aware of the processes at work in the Wikipedia. Hence my warning that persistent personal attacks may result in your being blocked.
As for your claim that he called you a shit, I think he was referring to the quality of your writing rather than to your person. In either case, yes, it was inappropriately phrased, and I am sure Mel is aware of the possible consequences. The one comment does not amount to a persistent personal attack.
On the other hand, I have provided links in my other posts on your talk page to your innuendo regarding Mel's status at Oxford, his gender and his use of sockpuppetry. I've also noted your more recent comment[68] . You seem infatuated with Mel to an extent far in excess of his influence on the philosophy page. Mel's occupation and gender are irrelevant to his role on the Wiki. Further discussion of them would amount to harassment. I strongly recommend that you desist.
I should also thank Mel for removing the comment you left on my User page, no doubt by accident.[69],
It is worth pointing out that Mel does not claim to be a Professor at Oxford. A knowledgeable fellow such as yourself will be aware that the term has a quite different meaning outside the United States.
As for the Star of Sophia, it is an unusual barnstar in that it is awarded by a vote, not by an individual. I voted in his favour because of the excellent and ubiquitous work he has done for philosophy on the Wiki. I gave the award belatedly, as a member of the Philosophy Wikiproject. I do not appreciate him because I gave him the barnstar, but rather I gave him the barnstar because I appreciate him. You have the situation arse-about.
Finally, I am glad that you have learned to use the "Show Preview" button, but regret your finding the "*". Sentences are preferable to dot-points, don't you think?
You greatly underestimate both Mel's contribution to the article and my own understanding of its history. Mel has been working on it since at least April 2005[70]. My own contributions precede his [71], although I have not made a significant edit in several months. Nor do you show much of an understanding of the Wiki by describing it as a "direct democracy" or an "anarchy". It is neither; it is an encyclopaedia. Thank you for your advice; I will continue to be biased in favour of those who have a demonstrated capacity to support the Wikipedia. I assure you that I have no intention of intimidating you; but rather to show you how the Wiki functions. As for your insistence that you are "not that ego involved here", perhaps you protest too much. Banno22:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historical notes
Hi,
you made a number of interesting additions to the schism section of philosophy page. I have moved these to its own subsection, called "Some Historical notes on the Analytic side of the Schism". The reason being that well they give details of the politics in the US and details of British formation of Analytic but none on France/Germany.
Now in philosophy this division goes back to Moore and also to Frege and Husserl at the turn of the century before all that politics you mention in the 1940s and 50s. So though McCarthyism etc is all very interesting from a TV point of view, and he may have banned books etc. it only happened quite a while after the division had begun forming. Remember the fear of Marxism was palpable in Europe ever since Marx himself roamed the cities. The split i think was real when both sides turned away from Hegel (ie, with Husserl and Moore/Russell). It was cemented by 1929 and the dissident move away from Husserl, it really just played itself out then in subsequent decades.
No doubt you are right in a way since the Red scare may have given the more apolitical Analytic an opportunists chance to "take-over" as Rorty says in the 40s and 50s at most philosophy departments the the US and UK.
Perhaps some of the stuff on the formation of Analytic you could add to the "history" sectio of the Analytic page.
With the schism the hard part is finding details of the breaks that occurred, for example, a book review of one side by the other, a tv show with both sides etc., are primary facts that show the division.
do you notice any difference in the way you comment on talk pages to other people?
Most people write a comment in a paragraph or two and only rarely make new subsections.
You keep adding various comments at various indentations sometimes in multiple subsection., with lots of distracting double bracket references.
Often you also add s number of signed comments instead of just making it a number of similarly indented paragraphs and signing it once at the end.
Now I'm not asking for everyone to be the same but it is hard for the rest of us to read. I think if you made more subtle comments others might have less work to do in sorting out what you are trying to say.
--Lucas19:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Schism
Why do you think the word, "schism" is ahistorical? The other word "diverge" is that more historical, or "gulf"? I think it is the most appropriate word because of its history. --Lucas19:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You think Schism is too strong, it is strong because it is Greek? It is strong because the divide is strong. Philosophy was more or less one, then it splits, a schism! The same happened in the Church because they like Philosophy often use Greek words you choice of the Latin word is inappropriate since Roman philosophy is not used much these days. I provided a reference for this use of the word, did you not se it.
--Lucas22:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop writing rubbish on the Philosophy page
And please stop discussing my corrections to the rubbish on my Talk page
The right place is the Talk page for the philosophy article, where any interested editor can read my critique of your work. If I am wrong about anything, please point it out there. I am not going to debate content on User Talk Pages. I am sending same message to Lucas for same reason. KD Tries Again20:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
Shortening the analytic/continental divide
I'm sorry our edits crossed over, meaning that I removed a lot of your text just after you'ld added it. However, I do think we should try and be concise, and that my version included the key points from what you had added. Over and above that, what I was trying to do with my version was make the section more coherent and easier for the reader to follow, explaining first the history and then moving onto the matter of the division between analytic and continental philosophy, rather than simply listing differences with little or no structure. So, if you do want to add some of the detail from your version back in (and I'd encourage you to think whether it's really necessary before you do so), please try and integrate it with what I've written, rather than reverting wholesale. VoluntarySlave20:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted Dbuckers abusive language, I suspect he may have been drinking. Anyhow, I need another editor to make a n Rfc. Also he seems to be removing work from the philosophy page with constant reverts and stalking editors, he seems to have no contribution to make apart from removing stuff from sections that other editors are working on, notice how he just so happens to now be editing the same section as myself. --Lucas23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You both may want to check out (the humorous) m:MPOV before you start taking this all too seriously... RfCs are kinda depressing, and best avoided if at all possible. Remember that The world will not end tomorrow!
You would also both be better off if you ignore the biographies and names of your fellow contributors. Discuss proposed text, NOT your own or others personal philosophies. Specifically, Ludvikus, stop calling people "philosopher king" and "'Professor'" as sarcastic reference to username and claimed profession. Anybody can edit here, their qualifications are irrelevant; only the quality of their contributions to articles matters. --Quiddity02:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ludvikus, to answer your question on my talkpage: Mel's intent behind that statement is to call you "overly-verbose", albeit in a very crude manner. The image in question is a reference to the constructed word he uses - logodiarrhoeic - which is basically a mixture of verbal diarhea and Logorrhoea.
You do tend to write a hell of a lot in a given time span, and not always very clearly, which when mixed in with editwarring and not using the preview button enough, makes for dozens and dozens of diffs for any editor "watch"ing an article to attempt to keep track of. So I have to agree with the premise, if not the phrasing of Mel's comment. --Quiddity02:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to Quiddity's point; "logodiarrhoeia" is an Anglicisation of the standard Greek word; the English word "logorrhoeia" is less lucid in its formation and, of course, has the relateed but different medical meaning. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 48 Hrs for disruptive editing
Ludvikus, after the recent spat of material that you have cut-and-pasted from talk pages onto the talk page of Philosophy,[72], [73], I am blocking you for a 48 hour period. I am of the opinion that you have exhausted the patience of the community, and that both you and they will benefit from a break. It is a shame that you did not follow Quiddity's advice, [74], instead of selectively quoting him[75]. Banno12:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notice, however, that we are grouped together (by him) - even though you're civil in the extreme.
Can you give me the reference for "Schism"? In fact, I did overlook it due to that other stuff going on. It really reinforces in my mind all those left of center views on the Continent.
Your presentations on the Talk page of Phil. are quite clear to me - and I can say that I substantially agree with your views. In fact, by the quantification scales of Db, I could even say that I agree 99%.
Well I already gave you a reference for the word schism, and there are lots in the article on it.
I also described above why it is preferable to some others anyhow its not that critical, split, divide, spearation, whatever.
What do you mean when you say, "with your previous list."
As to vocabularly use, I do not plan to use vocabulary of another. And to reveal my views, that is not what I'm doing really, there is no problem here since most of those on the talk page I do not suspect, it is just that they have been trained in this strange business and are afraid to see beyond it. The schism you say goes back to empiricism/rationalism divide, you could say all the way to Socrates/Aristotle while you are at it. However, that is why I try to detail the moments of history that show its present form. The difference with the rational/empiricst divide was that they were all talking, now it has become a schism, they ignore one another.--Lucas20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Schism
Do you live in Sweden?
When you've answered that tell me also why you dont like the word schism? Do you prefer "dichotomy", "diremption", "divide", "split", "divergence"? Is it just an irrational reason for not liking schism? —Lucas
You never answered my question about Sweden anyhow I see you are in New York from your user page. The thing is do you know anyone here from Sweden? Because if you remember that message you sent me today, the first one, you referred to something I'd said which you thought was not a good idea, well that Swede just removed that whole comment from the phil talk page.
Oh so you don't dislike the word, but you said elsewhere you didnt like it. In anycase one word or another must be used, why is it troublesome with that word?
You put in a [citation needed] thing by the word in the article, I then added a reference, it is still there, so check the article. --Lucas00:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ask about Sweden because, as I said a Swedish person removed the comment I had made on Foucault etc. check out the history of phil talk page, see at 19:08 someone (a Swede I found out) removed 5,292 letters from the page.--Lucas00:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
removed comments
I was restoring material that someone (a vandal) had deleted, how could this be vandalism if I'm undoing a vandals work?
you removed them again, why?
Because it may have been justifyably removed in accordance with Wiki policy.
It very wellmay have been construed as not contributory to the discussion. If you wanted it back - you should have done so earlier. Now it's to late to go back. Do you understand? --Ludvikus01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of this policy before, someone deleted talk from the page and you now add "we must know what was deleted". The point of the section was to alert to some removal of talk from the page and replace the removed material.--Lucas 01:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
---
What do you mean? They removed User:Mel Etitis's Bristol Stool Chart. Why do you think I was banned for 48 hours by Banno? You have no idea? They cleaned up that shit of Mel's and blamed me for that. Didn't you know that? --Ludvikus01:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
---
The crime is called "disruption to the community".[reply]
Remember - Copy & Paste on the Talk page - unless it a Vulgarity or Obsenity. I think they think that's OK. And there's no use fighting a cause you cannot possibly win. Unless you're Socrates or Christ, I might add. --Ludvikus01:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dbuckner's Museum
Be very careful what you do. He's posted all kind of shitty editing there. I know of one possible sloppy editor - from someone else - I think its VoluntarySlave. I believe she's responsible for all those silly errors. But Dbuckner is collecting all that to make you and I look like Madman. Do you not know that Richie and that alleged philosopher King hand said that to others that I'm insane?
Ludvikus01:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Hotel California
I was referring to the song by the Eagles by the name Hotel California. The words
of the song that came to my mind were" you can check out anytime you'd like, but
you can never leave". I was making an allusion of user Chris "backing towards the
door" of the philosophy section with the Hotel California song. In the song, a pro-
tagonist is lured into the Hotel California by a mysterious, beautiful woman. Once
inside, he finds himself in a decadent party, where everyone is bent on self destruction.
He tries to escape, but finds the doorway barred. In my mind, I was comparing the
lure of Philosophy and the mystery woman of the Hotel California. It was a humorous
attempt on my part of saying to Chris "Yeah, you're trapped here forever". Regards Richiar01:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who said what
Be very careful when disclaiming what you said in Wikipedia. There is an audit trail that identifies exactly who wrote what, and at what time. For examplehere,
here, and
here. Dbuckner08:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your editing style
Above I asked you a question: do you notice that the style of your edits differs from those of most other editors?
Your comments on the talk page are hard to read because:
1. You make several comments at different levels of indentation and also seem to sign each paragraph. If you add a paragraph to an existing paragraph in a talk page, and there was no other editor in-between, just put them at the same indent level (a colon(:) at the left-most position gives one indent, two colons give two etc.
3. On top of this you paste in stuff of another format entirely, this presents us visually with a jumble of text. I give an example from the phil talk page here:
I hope everyone notes that I'm not responsible for the current opening, and that I'm keeping my word of not touching it. What would User:Mel Etitis say of it? Is this what he would aprove? Is it not exactly too wordy - which he so disapproves? I wonder what would Lord Anthony Quinton say if he knew that he was the source of this Wikipedia characterization of philosophy? I wonder if Mel Etitis personally knows Philosoper Lord Quinton?
Philosophy concerns itself with what is the best way to live (ethics),
what sorts of things really exist and what are their true natures (metaphysics),
what is to count as genuine knowledge (epistemology),
and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).
[1]
Db, poeticly ponder this: isn't the above too logorrheic?
Consider making it less so by merely dropping the words I've stricken below?
Philosophy concerns itself with what is best the way to live (ethics),
what sorts of things really exist and what are their true natures (metaphysics),
what is to count as genuine knowledge (epistemology),
and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).
[2]
What do these words add that's useful to the description of philosophy above?
"itself," "best," "really," "true," "genuine," & "correct", etc.
Have I not merely made it less wordy, as Evil genius/poet/author, User:Mel Etitis would wish, had he been here helping us, rather than pontificating from Above or Below?
Do you comprehend my Rationality, Leader of the Pack of 4?
Here you have signed twice when only one signature is needed. You have too many references (things with square brackets, eg, we do not need redirection to poet, or evil genius) and too many changes of style, over-use of single quotes and the box panels. Inconsistent use of colon, eg, it is not used on the line "Db, poeticly ponder..." but you fail to use it on the next line. The last signature uses a colon but the line prior to it does not, put all your lines at the same indentation if no one else has a comment in between.
I don't think you are adding much more text than some others, so you are not excessively wordy, it is more the noise you make by putting in edits with multiple indentation, style and signature multiple at various levels of indentation and perhaps careless spelling.
Give up the burning martyr bit, you do not have a cause and besides,it's already been done.
An editor has nominated the article Anglo-American philosophy for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-American philosophy. Add four tildes like this ~~~~ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Anglo-American philosophy during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot22:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: No talk page messages were posted to any user; this is purely a request for administrator input and opinions, not for general editor discussion. Of course anyone may comment, but the request is for a view by others used to disputes, on specific edits, so that I can judge whether they are or are not a problem as some editors believe them to be.
My current view, for what it's worth, is that the above question (whether it is or isn't a big problem) needs answering quickly, because of its impact on mediation as a whole. Ordinarily they would tend to suggest a concern but each case is different. As a neutral mediator I am not willing to make a final definitive judgement on this without independent un-involved input.
Mediation means being honest about what is seen, but retaining independence from both sides of the dispute. There should therefore be little need to comment on it. critically, you are not being judged, nor is action proposed to be taken in the original post. I am explaining to others what I myself have noticed that tends to suggest a concern exists, and asking others input how they would see it, so that I can be sure I am acting in accordance with policy and best practice. FT2(Talk | email)02:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:1 1934 The Protocols.PDF)
Thanks for uploading Image:1 1934 The Protocols.PDF. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot10:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Categories (philosophy)
I've no idea what your comments at Talk:Categories (philosophy) are about. I mistakenly reverted an edit of yours[76], and immediately reverted my edit [77]. All this is visible on the history page[78]. You have removed comments by yourself and other users from the talk page[79]. This action of yours should by rights be reverted.
Ludvikus, are you aware of the "History" tab at the top of each page? All edits are visible to all users; take a look! A link to such a change is called a "Dif" and provides a clear audit trail for all edits. Please stop these silly accusations. Banno23:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean. Banno 00:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not an insult - who did I insult (I didn't name you)? And just because you have two words put together, does not mean use have something to write about in a Wikipedia article. You are doing Original Research - trying to proven that there was an neutral usage. Also, your name is in Red. Are you a Popsucker? --Ludvikus12:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You accused me of making an antisemitic edit. If you can't prove it it's insulting.
This is how the article looks now:
conspiracy.
. Because Jews happened to be
leading Bolsheviks
I simply put all these words on the same line and eliminated the double full-stop. What is antisemitic in that? What is original research in that? Do you know Wikipedia policies?
Why do you take it Personally? I did not say "Daisus" is an Antisemite. I do not even know who you are. All I'm saying is that that kind of explanaion is just an excuse for Antisemitism. Maybe you do not see it. Wikipedia says I should be Civil. That means I should not name anybody. And I didn't name anybody. I'm sorry you are offended - but that's because you are taking things personally. Please do not do that. I only say that what you said is Antisemitic. That is OK by Wikipedia policy. --Ludvikus12:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ludvikus your edit summary was a clear personal attack. Just because you did not explicitly name the editor does not absolve you from responsibility; its perfectly obvious who you were referring to. Its also patently absurd to label the fix that Daizus made as "anti Semitic". Please consider this your final warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on users, you will be blocked from editing. Thank you, Gwernol15:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am warning you about your edit summary that accused User:Daizus of making an anti-Semitic edit. Your edit summary was highly inappropriate and I am telling you not to do anything like that again. Daizus correctly removed some extraneous blank lines. To describe that as "anti-Semitic" is extremely insulting, factually wrong and clearly against multiple Wikipedia policies including WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Do not do it again. Gwernol16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The language used is Antisemitic. It's you that's deducing that your Wiki red associate is an Antisemite. So if you want him saved from personal attack, I suggest you keep his name out of our discussion. However, I notice that you are working with, and being carefully advised by User:Mel Etitis who is desparately trying to get a Community ban on me. So the one that's engage in a person attack is you, User:Gwernol. And your Co-conspirator is Administrator Mel Etitis. So the people who should get a "warning" are you, Gwernol, as well as your partner Mel. Clearly, it is I who is being subjected to personal attacks. Please, both of you, stop your compagn of launching and conspiring on each others talk pages, to personally attack me. --Ludvikus17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is an outrageous and false accusation. Mel asked for a third party opinion from an uninvolved admin rather than blocking you himself. I decided that you should receive a warning instead of a block. Instead of listening calmly and carefully to my warning you have decided to restate the personal attack on User:Daizus and attack my integrity. As a result I have blocked' you for 24 hours. Your behavior is unacceptable here. Please take the next day away from Wikipedia and use it to consider quite how inappropriate your actions have been. When you return, please attempt to remain civil and avoid making further personal attacks. If you continue to make obviously false accusations you will find yourself blocked for a considerably longer period. Gwernol19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mel Etitis
It's the Cartesian state of my mind - it's not about you, Mel. And I know you know Descartes, as well as his Evil Genius. Why is it that you cannot just apologize to me?
Instead Mel is now, working with others to attack me personally. He deliberately is supporting a campaign to stigmatize me as someone who abbusively calls other Antisemite. This is untrue. I have been extremely careful not to name any names. I think it is his friend, a cocksucker, or popsucker, or whatever the Wiki term is, who is Mel's agent behind all this. And I'm asking Mel to stop it, and to apologize for it. What's that "Don't be a Dick?" Wiki expression you, or Banno created? And where is that Soup of yours? --Ludvikus18:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Block extended
I just noticed your "cocksucker" remark above. In what universe do you consider this appropriate language? It certainly is not appropriate here on Wikipedia, as you are well aware. Your block has been extended to 1 week and if you continue to use this talk page to make personal attacks on other editors I will protect it for the duration of your block. You may use this page to request an unblock if you feel that is appropriate but further attacks will not be tolerated. Gwernol19:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever you are, I have to use "Banno"'s expression on you: "Don't be a dick". That's a usage that Banno informed us is proper Wiki usage. So I'm asking you now: "Don't be a dick." And if you do not know what that means, go to Mel's friend, User:Banno. Now I'm asking FT2 to help against you personal attack on me. Again, I'm asking you: "Don't be a dick". You are causinng Disruptionm and provoking me because Mel want's me banned. Or is it that you wish to tell me which part of Don't be a dick you do not understand? --Ludvikus19:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, my sole involvement is as mediator on one article, where it seems your conduct is at question. This is based not upon others say-so but upon the evidence of your own work which I myself have read. I decline to distract myself from that focus, and I make clear that I do not support incivility and personal attacks, by either side, and I have shown this by indicating my disapproval of incivility by others too.
In this case, the decision to block is based upon standard approaches to repeated serious incivility, and is (in my view) a reasonable one for any admin to undertake. You will have to sit it out and reflect upon your ongoing incivility and the need for change, so that it does not recur. In the meantime do not look to me to support such behavior or to take up arms against what is quite a proper and reasonable view on it. Please disabuse yourself of that notion. FT2(Talk | email)14:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Length of your user pages.
They are getting extremely long, might want to look at ways to reduce them down and make them easier on others and yourself? Just a handy suggestion that I hope helps. Have a nice day! MathmoTalk06:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, I did not understand to your previous words correctly. I thought you are busy because you are working on different project. What did you so harmful that you're blocked ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈13:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look closely at the edit of his that you reverted, you will see he didn't make any changes to text at all, he just removed a linebreak (carriage-return), and a misplaced period (fullstop). You reverted it with an edit summary of "Revert - Antisemitic modification". When he asked you why, you started by insulting his intelligence: "just because you have two words put together, does not mean use have something to write about in a Wikipedia article",
Then you called him a popsucker: "And your name is in Red. Are you a Popsucker?" I don't know what that is meant to mean, but his username is in red because he hasn't added anything to his userpage yet. Wikilinks to empty pages are displayed in red, which you should know after making as many edits as you have.
I assume good faith on your part, User:Quiddity, because you have always been a gentleman. Accordingly either you are mistaken, or Wikipedia is subject to easy fandalism, because the facts, as I know them are substantially different from your presentation. The page in question is Jewish Bolsheviks, which is a so called noun + adjetive expression (according to Wikipedians). The fact is that those who explain or justify the hatred of Jews are crackpots and Antisemites. My position is simple: Jewish Bolsheviks has only an Antisemitic meaning, interpretation, usage, justification, etc. I am not responsible for the fact that that Draius/red (whatever his difficult to remember name is) user deduced that I have insulted him. The insult was his own deduction. I did not hurl at him any insult. And that term popsucker is just my paraphrase of the other dofficult Wiki word for a Wikipedia who disguises his identity. I am not allowed to name any of the people I suspect - what's that word, I don't know, and I do not wish to waste my time looking for it - it sounds something like suckpoper - can you help me out on this? Also, I can no longer locate the Wikipedia linked expression Don't be a dick. Can you please provide me with the link to it. Also, it would be helpful if you located that link to that "popsucker" term. It was user:Noetica who suspected a pop-x to be disguising himself as such. And User:Mel Etitis went out of his way to deny he was the pop-X on Philosophy. Why don't you ask Mel for the term so that I pay properly, and in a dignified manner, fill in the X? Is that to much ask for, in this honorable court and trial proceeding regarding my linguistic usages? And could you ask Mel to give me the acroym, code, link, or whatever, of the Soup message he left on my talk page? I know I'm not gowing to the gallows, but am I not allowed to defend myself here? it seems to me that the Way things go around here, at Wikipedia, is just to find enough Wikipedians who hate my guts and want to get on the bandwaggen to Wikilinch me. Is that a Neologism? So far there have been foun 3 Wiki administrators, all close frinds, who hate my guts. And I cannot name the, because that would be a Personal Attack. But what am I being subjected to, if not a campaign to provoke, intimidate, and insult me. No you, User:Quiddity, are you able to name the person who insulted me by giving me a rating of between 6 and 7 on the Bristol Stool Chart? I believe you find that chart more than insulting. Isn't it disgusting? Since I was banned (48 hours) by User:Banno because of allegedly misquoting you, could you please explain what happened then, as affects my reputation here? Yours truly, --Ludvikus22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What has happened is fairly simple. You have acted in a way that others have felt inappropriate. Humann beings are not robots, so this happens occasionally, and people do sometimes say things they regret. But you have allowed an impression to exist that you do this repeatedly. For examplke I have myself, as a neutral advisor, told you several times to let go of insults, and to ignore them as I have done on many occasions. this was good advice and would help you. But you have instead repeated it many many times, dwelling on it. I can't prevent you doing that, but my advice to let it go was for good reason, and good advice, and would have improved your position. I also as a neutral person observe many times where people have tried to support you, or follow rules which apply to everyone, and you have treated them as attacking you, and created a mystique that you are a victim of everybody. Again, I cannot stop you doing this, but I will observe that it will place you in a position where you will get blocked, and that is your future to encourage by doing it more, or avoid by complete sudden cessation. Jewish Bolshevism is whatever Jewish Bolshevism is. But that does not change your response to other editors being inappropriate. That again is a judgement of your edits, and not biased by anyone elses words. Personally it is clear to me that many people find disruption more "disgusting" than any insult. Insults can be ignored by any mediocre adult awareness, but disruption speaks of distain for an entire communal effort. It spurns the work of many people for egoic purposes. That will be seen as more "digusting", unfortunately, and this you have been warned and advised of. Again, all I have for you is advice, because I cannot choose for you. But the advice is good. FT2(Talk | email)22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
replies
unconnected answers, to questions from Ludvikus above:
The content of the Jewish Bolshevism page has nothing to do with Daizus. Look at the edit history of the article, and you will see that the only edit Daizus has ever made there was that simple text-formatting fix, as I explained above (and then he also reverted your nonsensical revert).
The term you mean is Sockpuppet, but that is irrelevant to everything except the recent comments by ObserverA; ignore it, as it's not an issue we're dealing with here.
The essay you are looking for (and be very clear that it is an essay, not policy or a guideline, and that there are dozens of similar essays) is Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. I would also suggest you read Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic.
I believe you are purposefully trying to distort a simple wordplay insult (which FT2 says Mel has already been rebuked for) into a huge issue, in order to distract from the main issue, which is that you have been a net-negative influence at the article Philosophy, and elsewhere, for quite some time. He was basically saying "you talk a lot of crap" in a fancy way, which given the evidence of your tendencies toward hyperbole, sarcasm, and jumping to conclusions, is uncomfortably close to the truth.
I would strongly suggest you spend a few months reading about Wikipedia, and getting a better idea of how things work, before editing any further. You might like to start with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and the other policies, as they are among the most crucial elements here. When you return, I would advise treading a little lighter, thinking a little longer (and previewing!) before saving any edits, and staying clear of any topics that you have particularly strong opinions about. Also, remember that humor does not translate very well inter-culturally and is best avoided, and sarcasm should never be used because it is almost always misinterpreted by someone. --Quiddity00:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article trial unblock
I have today unblocked the Philosophy article on a trial basis, based upon your agreement to heed certain editorial standards we have agreed by email. Please see my comment on Talk:Philosophy (DIFF).
The above may be considered a final "heads up" as mediator on the reasonably foreseeable response to certain forms of problematic editorship if they recur. Clear descriptions and good advice have been visibly given which will avoid this, and which may be ignored or followed at will. No discussion or elaboration is needed, the matter having been discussed enough. FT2(Talk | email)23:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you are talking about. Here's the 3-way dialogue involving User:Daizus at Jewish Bolshevism. User:Daizus is defending the "neutral" usage. Ludvikus & Humus sapiens oppose:
used according to English grammar as an adjective + a noun
Consider other general syntagms: "dirty Jew", "bloodthirsty Jew", "perfidious Jew". ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
"dirty", "bloodthirsty", "perifidious" are insulting by themselves. "dirty French", "bloodthirsty French", "perfidious French" are insulting, too, right? But "French Bolshevism" would be insulting? No. So what is insulting in "Jewish Bolshevism" if one wants to address specifically the phenomenon? It is like "French Surrealism" or "Balkanic Nationalism" - A phenomenon observed/discussed within some ethnic/cultural/geographical boundaries. Daizus 08:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Since you seem to insist on the strictly literal interpretation, let me play a devil's advocate and say that I don't see anything offensive in the word "dirty." ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Shall we make a special clause for "dirty Jew" in the article Kibbutz? Surely their work involves getting dirty once in a while. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The expression "Jewish Bolshevism" is known to be used in a very specific way, and our article reflects it. Even there were plenty of Russians, Ukrainians and Lativans in the movement, we don't have articles Russian Bolshevism, Ukrainian Bolshevism or Latvian Bolshevism for a reason. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't suggest we should write an article on Jewish Bolshevism as a neutral term (because simply it is not coined as such), simply to acknowledge in this article that actually a large number of Jews participated in Bolshevic movements (and that removed paragraph had a link to History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union#Jews and Bolshevism, an article with a rich scholarly bibliography - check Yuri Slezkine's book for instance). It is a POV to suggest Jewish Bolshevism is just a conspiracy theory and has absolutely no factual basis. There was a significant part in the Bolshevic movement with Jewish origin and I see this fact intentionally obscured by the current form of the article. Daizus 11:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree with User Humus above. And to answer your specific question on "French Bolshevism": the number of Frenchmen in the Russian empire was practically zero. But if there were a significant number it too would be racist. Any such usage, suggests a defect in a people, race, nationality - can only be such in the context you give. What you are saying by it is, again, that there was something in the nature of the Jew which mad him a Communist; but Russians, are nicer people, so they are not inclined to be Communists. That's what the phrase means, and nothing more. The purpose of this article is to document Antisemitism, and not to be Antisemitic like the Protocols of Zion. You are only trying to do what these Protocls are all about - to say that Jews, or primarily Jews, are responsible for the Communist fate of Russia. That's why you do not have a Reference to support your usage. Do you understand me? --Ludvikus 11:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Ludvikus, Bolshevism wasn't and isn't limited to Russia (or rather the former Soviet Union). There were and are Bolsheviks in France. I myself could be considered a Luxembourgish (or European as I don't identify all that much with the country/state) Bolshevik (and several of my friends and colleagues consider themselves such rather then simply communists). I'd also like to see a source for the specific, scholarly use of the term "Jewish Bolshevism", but that does not mean that the term is always inappropriate (though I'm not sure an internationalist like Trotsky for instance would have self identified as a Jew, Russian or any other ethnicity for that matter (in a way, "Jewish Bolshevik" is an insult to those people (not because of the identification as Jewish, but because of any ethnic/national identification when they tried to overcome all such barriers))). Also attacking other wikipedians as you once again did with your You are only trying to do what these Protocols are all about... comment is not acceptable. Please read Wikipedia:Assume Good faith, I see no reason to assume Daizus is pursuing an anti-semitic agenda in his edits and comments here.--Caranorn 13:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Caranorn.
I also provided my examples: "French Surrealism", "Balkan nationalism" are coined syntagms and they do not suggest anything about full commitment of the members in one category to the other category. I am not trying to say all the things you suggest I'd believe or want to say! I understand however a point you're making - that some people may understand that. We can work on phrasing, no problem for me!
The purpose of the article is not antisemitism (which has its own article), but Jewish Bolshevism as a theory (conspiracy theory as it is presented). People may read this article and say: ok, ok - these guys were crazy and thought the Jews conspired to create a new world order, a worldwide system led by them, but what was the reality, what eventually drove them to believe that? It's absurd to claim the term just popped up from nothingness. Perhaps it is not within this article's purpose to clarify that, but as long as there's in Wikipedia a material (not very detailed, I admit) concerning this issue (which was in the text you removed), it would be nice to have a mention and a reference. Daizus 13:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't. You are blocked because you reverted this edit by User:Daizus with the edit summary "Revert - Antisemitic modification". Daizus' edit was clearly not an "antisemitic modification", and suggesting that it was was deeply insulting to Daizus. I warned you not to repeat that personal attack, to which you responded "The language used is Antisemitic" thus repeating the attack so I then blocked you for 24 hours. While I was implementing the block you wrote "I think it is his friend, a cocksucker, or popsucker, or whatever the Wiki term is, who is Mel's agent behind all this". Calling another editor a "cocksucker" is beyond any reasonable bounds of decent, civilized behavior so I extended your block to 1 week. Those are the reasons you were blocked. Gwernol01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am in no way associated with User:Daizus. I had never heard of that user until I came to your talk page and found the insults you had made against him. I have never interacted with Daizus in any way beyond investigating your attacks on him. Your continued accusations of collusion are completely untrue. Gwernol01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Daizus doesn't have a userpage. Therefore when you click on the link Wikipedia attempts to create one. But because you are blocked from editing you get the message saying you cannot edit. You would get the same message if you tried to create any other page while you are blocked, try it on jkl dajk dsjk which is another page that does not exist. This does not indicate any relationship between Daizus and myself; it just means I blocked you. Gwernol01:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its none of those things. Mel Etis simply pointed out that you had left this message on your talk page saying you didnt understand my warning. As a result I came back and clarified my meaning for you in this edit. Reading that as "entrapment", "harrassment" or "wikistalking" is simply wrong. Mel was in fact helping you out. I clarified the warning I had given you, as you asked me to. At this point you repeated the baseless personal attack on User:Daizus and as a result were blocked for 1 day. You then launched another personal attack on Daizus again and your block was extended to 1 week. Gwernol02:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right. You "warned" in the context of Jewish Bolsheviks. And you did not bother at all identfying yourself as an Adminstrators'. And when Antisemiteswarn somebody it is to be constued as a threat of bodily harm, a death treat. Do you understand me? How was I to know that you were not in fact making a death threat? How could you, an Administrator be so recless? Why could you not be more civil? Identify who you are, and advise me of proper Wiki decorum? You know that Wikipedia requires the presumption of Good Faith. Don't you realize that a "warning" in that context is ambiguous? I wanted you to be clear. I wanted to know whether or not you were one of the Antisemites who visit cite in order to justify the hatred of Jews because "so many Jews were Bolsheviks" - which just a way of blaming Jews for Russia's Communist Revolution. That's why I said I do not know what you mean. I want to know whethern or not your warning was in fact a treat. Do you understand? --Ludvikus02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You assumed that my warning: "Ludvikus your edit summary was a clear personal attack... If you continue to make personal attacks on users, you will be blocked from editing." was a death threat? You assumed on the basis of no information at all that I was an Anti Semite? And you presume to lecture me about assuming good faith? Any editor on Wikipedia is allowed to warn another editor when they breach one of our rules; it is not a job reserved for administrators. Accusing me of making a death threat against you is extremely serious and given you have only your massive assumption of bad faith to back it up, I will ask you to withdraw that. To assume I am an antisemite because I asked you to be civil is also a deeply offensive thing for you to do. Stop assuming everyone is against you. Gwernol03:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now your twisting what I'm saying. I'm only saying that I construed your warning as ambiguous. And now you are twisting it into an attack on you. Right now I only question your fairness to me. And on that I have not yet made up my mind? Do you understand me? --Ludvikus03:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editing
If you are blocked how is it you are still editing? I thought that FT2 had decided not to take any action against you cos you patched it up through emails. Anyhow, not sure if your new page Anglo-US philosophy will be in jeopardy. -- Lucas (Talk)
The problem is what constitutes "abuse". Quiddity, am I going to be considered "abusive", if I explain to Lucas what happened to me - my version - and give the names of who did what? Please advise. --Ludvikus09:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Thanks for alterting me. To be honest, and I might as well be, I find Ludvikus ludicrous, self-contradictory, often deeply uncivil (and equally often deeply obscure), baselessly arrogant, and lacking in self-control, self-awareness, and understanding of philosophy. He and a few other editors have taken over Philosophy, which is a laughing stock; it and one or two other similar articles have often been cited in my hearing as evidence that Wikipedia shouldn't be taken seriously or used as a reliable resource. Although I find that depressing, I don't feel that there's anything that anyone can do; editors like Ludvikus are tirelessly logodiarrhoeic (somewhere between types 6 and 7 on the Bristol Stool Chart), and have no sense of or respect for Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Even if I had the time and energy to commit myself full time to improving the article, they would frustrate that attempt. Just look at the article's history as soon as the protection was removed: rocket-powered hysterical editing, with edit-warring thrown in, all with the net result of... the usual mess."
"Maybe (but not likely to be honest) I'll return to look at it in the Easter vacation, but I've too much teaching (and thus marking, etc.) to do during the term. I admire your ability to keep your cool in the midst of it all. I hope to keep contributing the odd philosophy-related article, but Philosophy itself I'll leave to others (and good luck to them)."
"(The suggestion that I'm using a sock-puppetto give myself two voices in the debate is a bit odd, given that I've withdrawn from the debate. If only it were the oddest thing that had been said. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)"
Why is it so difficult for Mel to simply apologize to Ludvikus? Why does Mel have to gang up on me with allhis friends at Wikipedia? Banno, you that you're often accused of having a Cabal. But don't you see that there is one in fact? Mel abuses me by calling me shit, and you accept it like it's nothing. But when I use that other word, User:Gwernol bans me for one week? Don't you see this as unjustified behavior? How do you guys sleep at night? I wish you guy to dream about this and see if your conscience tells you something in the morning? Again, Mel, why can't you just admit that you wronged and insulted me?
And User:Gwernol - isn't User:draisus realy a sock-puppet created to set me up so that you could have an excuse to ban me for a week? And he is red. because he (User:Daisus) doesn't exist - has no account - that's what I believe.
My role is to mediate a dispute and see it resolved. If people act appropriately then there may be disagreement, but there will no longer be a "dispute" as such. In an ideal world, all editors can contribute to such articles and a consensus will emerge. Unfortunately at times some editors prove unable to do that. Ludvikus has had a large number of "heads up" what is needed and what it will lead to if not provided, whatever the rationale. He has said he will act in a way that supports debate. If he does, then we don't have a dispute in the article, and unprotection is possible, which will allow others new to Wikipedia or not yet involved, to contribute too. I choose to give him the chance and to see by his own choices what that chance means. If he acts well, the credit is all his because nobody else has "made" him act well. Unfortunately if he cannot, or does not, then the consequences are all his nobody else would have "made" him construct posts that way either. FT2(Talk | email)10:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ludvikus, you do not have to explain to me what happened I saw it all, that is why I put a word in for you in the administrator's discussion. Nor did I like this stuff about charts etc. that they started slinging at you, but please, if you wouldn't mind not mentioning these things again even if you are only doing so to establish that it was another who started this whole thing, I think you were justified, in a way, in getting angry about that, as they seemed to start it. Better not continue talking of those much repeated names, just leave the matter rest and forget about it. Return to readng philosophy and not insults. You are banned and when you are unbanned we need hear no more of charts or any other insults (it is bad luck to repeat insults even when quoting others, or when trying to refute them).-- Lucas (Talk)14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you do not understand. I was wikistalked at Jewish Bolshevism by what I believe to be a sock poppet (as Mel) calls them. The sockpoppet user and I disagreed over the usage of Jewish Bolshevism. I maintained that it's usage is only Antisemitic. sock-poppet then turns around and accuse me of calling him an Antisemite. I disagree, and have a dialogue with this sock-poppet - to figure out what he means. So I question him. At that point Mel tells Gwernol that I'm doing my usual thing: what, why, etc. So then Gwernol steps in with his 2 "warnings". I wonder whether the wornings are threats. When I do not get an answer, I do exactly what Mel did. But instead of making reference to Mel's prefered anul (the Chart) region, or Banno's genitilia, I move the discourse to a higher place of the human anatomy - from the anus to the oral orifice]] - and for this Gwernol Bans now for one week. Don't you, Lucas, appreciate that I'm more interested now in how power, authority, civility, fairness, administratership are exercise at Wikipedia? All this is very valuable experience for me. I am DOING philosophy - rather then merely writing about it. Do you understand me, Lucas? At least you, of all people, I thought would understand. And your defense of me thus far has been very weak. In that I'm very disappointed. i thought at least you would stand up for me. Yours truly, --Ludvikus15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're done
Ludvikus,
Since you continue to use this page to make unacceptable personal attacks, including repeating those attacks you have already been blocked for, I have protected this page so you can no longer use it in this manner. The protection will lift when your block does.
When the block and protection lift, do not continue with your campaign of accusations and personal attacks. If you do, I will reblock you and it is highly likely that a permanent ban will be imposed upon you. Gwernol15:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ludvikus, this edit is beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior. Comparing editors to Stalin and Hitler is simply not acceptable. I am asking you now to step back from the discussion at Talk:Philopsophy and take a moment to actually read and understand our policy on personal attacks. You are one more edit away from being permanently disbarred from Wikipedia. Please take this as a final plea from a disinterested administrator. Stop now. Gwernol22:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NPA again as you are continuing to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of it. You were not attacked. A user telling you that they will report you is not a personal attack. However, you comparing another editor to Hitler and Stalin is a very clear personal attack. You have a clear choice here. Either: 1) understand what is and is not a personal attack on Wikipedia. 2) refrain from making further personal attacks; or you make further personal attacks you will be indefinitely blocked. Gwernol01:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated Controversial literature, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial literature and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot15:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allegation of personal attacks
No, I don't think they are personal attacks since they comment on your actions, not on you as a person. At the most they are extremely mild incivility and I don't intend to take action. Gwernol20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the policy on personal attacks? The examples you just left on my page was clearly not a personal attack. It doesn't even come close to meeting the definition in the policy. Please review the policy again, since it appears you don't understand what does and does not constitute a personal attack on Wikipedia. Apologising for and withdrawing a previous comment about a user is obviously not a personal attack. Gwernol20:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the quote "The comments by Lukvikus at (17:52) seem digressive with incorrigible perseveration, there seems to be veiled hostile insinuation, the questions he raises have been exhaustively addressed already and I feel do not warrant further comment" is what I derscribed as at most mild incivility. The other quote you gave is Richiar withdrawing the sentiment that you have bipolar disorder. How exactly does the withdrawal of, and apology for, accusing you of suffering from a disorder count as a personal attack? Its possible that the original "diagnosis" was a personal attack, but he unconditionally withdrew it, so the matter is at an end. Gwernol20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was quite clear when I said that Richiar's original comment probably does constitute a personal attack, but since he has withdrawn that comment and apologized for it, I don't see what you are trying to achieve beyond inflaming the situation further and making your position on Talk:Philosophy even more isolated. If you can't accept the apology that's already been given, then you can ask any administrator to look into this for a third opinion. Gwernol21:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please actually read my replies to you. I have told you twice that I believe Richiar's description of you as having bipolar syndrome was a personal attack. I have also told you that since he apologized and withdrew that remark, it doesn't make sense to pursue the matter, but if you want to then you need to ask another admin to do that.
Finally, I referred to Richiar's comment: "The comments by Lukvikus at (17:52) seem digressive with incorrigible perseveration, there seems to be veiled hostile insinuation, the questions he raises have been exhaustively addressed already and I feel do not warrant further comment" as at most mild incivility, not the description of you as Bipolar.
Do not come back and claim I said anything different. The text is right there above. Please read and comprehend what I wrote before replying further. Gwernol21:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what are you not understanding here? I have now told you this three times. You asked me whether the comment (and only this comment) ""The comments by Lukvikus at (17:52) seem digressive with incorrigible perseveration, there seems to be veiled hostile insinuation, the questions he raises have been exhaustively addressed already and I feel do not warrant further comment" was a personal attack. I told you I considered it a mildly incivil comment at worst and not a personal attack. Yes, for the final time, I don't think that particular comment was a personal attack. Gwernol21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rationality and Reason
I'm not sure why you posted this on my talk page. I am not participating in the discussion on the Philosophy talk page, nor do I wish to be dragged into it. Thanks, Gwernol02:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no further objections to your continuing your important and original work on the philosophy article. Go ahead, please. I will watch with interest. Dbuckner15:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: my comment above
Hi, Ludvikus. I have been helping out in the monitoring of Gwernol's user and talk pages whilst he has been under attack from an IP range. I happened to notice your comment added to his talk page here, and can see that you've had a lot of trouble with certain 'philosophers'. I am merely saying, in effect, that whilst philosophy is no doubt a worthwhile subject, it is almost impossible to ever win an argument. So I will be avoiding it 'like the plague' (another light-hearted saying).
This is not a veiled attack. We all need to be able to stand back and take a look at things, and perhaps smile to ourselves once in a while. These pages are not a matter of life or death (well, not to me, anyway), and shouldn't be taken too seriously. Okay? I do sympathise with what you've been through. Best wishes Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds)19:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used to be a football (soccer) referee! Watch any top-class football match in England, and you will see at least two incidents where groups of players converge on the official and abuse him. I got quite used to that. The trick is to develop a way of handling it which allows you to smile at their ignorance, and step back from the 'heat'.
If a house is on fire, do you go into the middle of it? How's that for philosophy? :-)
Like I say, as long as your own behaviour is impeccable (faultless), your tormentors' ignorance will be found out by the people that matter. You can still choose friends within Wikipedia - you just have to recognise who the true ones are.
IP range: A single IP address comprises of a series of four numbers spaced by dots to form an internet protocol, which looks like this - 240.83.17.116 for example. A complete IP range for the above would be - 240.83.0.0 to 240.83.255.255 for example. When a Wikipedia ban is applied, any user who tries to edit from a computer in the ISPs range above would find it impossible to open an edit, although they could still look at Wikipedia.
Hi. Thanks for the invite over to Philosophy. However, as I've said, the fire's too hot for me there. You have obviously developed an impeccable knowledge of the niceties of the subject. I, meanwhile, have done the same during my life with soccer refereeing and the Laws of the game. It's best left like that - I wouldn't expect to involve you in a conversation such as "how could we fine-tune the offside law regarding active/inactive in different phases of play in order to ascertain whether a player gains an advantage by being in an offside position?". :-o Best wishes Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds)16:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense edits and rambling
Please stop the nonsense edits, and rambling on the talk page about other users. Keep your comments to the point, and on the subject. Nothing about Prosac, please. I have asked the administrators to impose another block for a week, in any case. Dbuckner 07:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
(Please note this is not a personal attack on you. It is on the consistently poor quality edits on the main article page, and on your failure to keep to the point on the talk page. Dbuckner07:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where have you been? Are you not aware that there's an effort to ban me?
It is Dbuckner who's bating me. Why don't you look more carefully at what he's doing to me?
I think you are not aware of the facts.
Why don't you come and make some contributions yourself. We need new blood.
Don't you see the attack on Me? I'm accused - regarding my editing - of "nonsense" and of "rambling". I cannot understand how you could consture a defense against that as "baiting."
Ludvikus, I have no intention of contributing to the article. I am discussing your behaviour, no-one else's. Don't change the subject. —Moondyne16:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ludvikus, I've blocked you for six months. You have demonstrated an inability to work with the other editors of philosophy. The Wiki community have been more than supportive in trying to explain how the process works here, but you have persisted in your disruptive editing. Your recent edits on rationalism show a lack of understanding of the history of philosophy, yet you persist in editing the article, and occupying the talk page with irrelevant yet extensive argumentation. Your presence here does not assist in the creation of better articles, but constipates any progress. Let this be an end to it. Banno19:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is with regard to emphasis, rather than originality, that Descartes is credited with contributing the Cogito to Philosophy. Here's Russell's quote (p. 355 of his History of Western Philosophy 1945) from Augustine's Soliloquia:
You, who wish to know, do you know you are? I know it.
Whence are you? I know not.
Do you feel yourself single or multiple? I know not.
Do you feel yourself moved? I know not.
Do you know that you think? I do.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Good quote, but I think there may be a typo. Please check. Rick Norwood 17:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Whereso, Rick Norwood? --Ludvikus 17:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
And why, Dbuckner, did you just Revert or Delete this item? --Ludvikus 17:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.
Request reason: "I'm not a "Persistent troll" as Administrator & Philosophy editor User:Banno"
Decline reason: "Despite endless warnings, Ludvikus continued to troll Talk:Philosophy creating an unpleasant and unproductive environment for other editors. His contributions there appear only to disrupt the effective work of other volunteers. I see no evidence of him offering to modify his behaviour. The block is supported. -- —Moondyne00:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.
Hi Ludvikus. You have email.
Email
Ludvikus, you have emailed me as follows: I've been blocked for 6 months by someone else while you were evaluating the matter. That's not fair. I sould not have to defend myself in front of several Adminstrators. I thought that you and I were discussing the matter. What is your position on this unfair way of dealing with a dedicated user whose made several hundred successful contributions - except for PHILOSOPHY. --Ludvikus I have posted the message her for transparency as I do not wish to correspond with you off-line while your block is possibly being investigated by others.
My position is that on numerous occasions you have failed to heed warnings from a number of administrators regarding your behaviour. You have endlessly broken fundamental Wikipedia policies regarding civility, no personal attacks and assuming good faith. As far as I can see, you haven't once apologised for your behaviour and you are yet to show any remorse or acceptance that your behaviour may be wrong and that you would try to change it in the future. You have made editing by other committed volunteers a chore. You say I thought that you and I were discussing the matter. I posted a warning on this page yesterday and you reverted onto my talk with a diatribe about other users allegedly doing things to you - as I said: my concern was with your behaviour. When I logged on this morning, another administrator had blocked you and after further investigation of your history, I declined your unblock request. —Moondyne06:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Ludvikus"
(User:Banno to [[User:Dbuckner] at the latter's Talk page])
"While your pleading had some influence on my decision to ban him, his starting to edit rubbish into the main article at Philosophy was my main reason. Rubbish on talk pages can be ignored; but not in articles."
"I must say that this whole episode has been handled very poorly, from the beginning. As soon as his disruptive editing became apparent, an RfC should have been launched against him. This is not the job of the administrators, but of the editors who found his work problematic. There is no point in railing against Wiki policy if it is not followed. While the admins, including myself, have been remiss in allowing this to continue as long as it has, we have not been helped by the attitude adopted by other editors."
"I hope this is an end to his editing, but it is entirely possible that my block will be lifted by another admin, or that the issue will proceed to arbitration. Without the RfC, the information on which I based my decision to block him will only be apparent to someone who has the fortitude to go over the talk pages of the many articles and users who have been involved. Any admin who gives this issue a quick once-over may well decide that this is a case of bastardisation. I am convinced that it isn't, and that banning Ludvikus was the only sensible thing to do."
"I hope that, when this sort of issue arises again, the editors of the relevant pages , including your good self, will follow Wiki procedures. Banno 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)"
1. The above is the reason for my being banned by Administrator User:Banno — who is also one of the dozen or so Philosophy Editors — in Banno's own words.
2. How is it proper to apologize for allegedly producing "rubbish"?
3: User:Banno is both a Philosophy Editor, and a Wikpedia Administrator. That's a conflict of interests. Should he choose: one, or the other?
4: If you are a fair Administrator, User:Moondyne, you should un-ban me, as well as apologize to me on behalf of Wikipedia for the continuous abusive behavior I am being subjected to.
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).
I've been blocked for allegedly producing "rubbish" in Philosophy. There is a "conflict of interest" in that determination. The one who banned me is both an Administrator and one of the Editors. Simply because he thinks my philosophical views are "rubbish" conflicted with his role as Administrator who decided to block me. This is fundamentally unfair. And Wikipedia, if it is to maintain its reputation as being fair, must find an Administrator who will unblock me, and correct this kind of injustice.
Decline reason:
The block comes at the end of a long series of personal attacks and disruptive editing. The notion that, in order to be fair, admins must do what you want is part of the lack of understanding you've shown of your behaviour over the past few months. If, when the block expires, you are willing to edit articles in cooperation with other editors, respecting consensus, and respecting other people's views, then you'll be welcome. If you continue in the way that you have been, I should imagine that the next block would be indefinite. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Your latest unblock request
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).
Conflict of Interest. I'm not a "Persistent troll". I'm blocked by Administrators Banno and Mel Etitis for work on the Philosophy page. They themselves are also Philosophy editors. Banno calls my work "rubbish". Mel Etitis changes the accusation to my "behavior" towards administrators.
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.
Thanks for uploading Image:Uberto_Eco_-_Foucault's_Pendulum.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. Coredesat02:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book of that image is old enough that its own copyright is no longer valid. If you made the image yourself, it can be freely licensed. If not, I am afraid it may qualify for deletion as a replaceable fair use image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:1920_Protocols_&_World_Revolution_3.0.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. Videmus OmniaTalk03:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Warrant for Genocide - 1897959494.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Warrant for Genocide - 1897959494.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot06:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Typewriter.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn10:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're talking about, or accusing me of, Banno.
I don't even know what Block evasion means.
All I know, Banno, is that you've suspended me from editing on Wikipedia until August 15, 2007. So my suspension is now over. So why am I accused of "Block evasion"?
As to my discussion regarding the term Antichrist - it involves a perfectly legitimate question as to whether one should write the term preceded with the definite article "the." The editor with which I attempted to engage the discussion with had "corrected" my usage, and merely tried to let him know that I believed that either usage was correct. Instead of responding to that issue, this editor - I believe his name is [User talk:Elipongo] - appears to have accused me of "Block evasion."
There is no user by the name "xxxxxxxxx.xxxx". User names are case sensitive. Please check your spelling, or use the link below to create a new user account. --70.23.242.1211:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Centre" is the British/UK/Australian/everywhere outside of America spelling. "Center" is the US spelling. Although I'm American, I've left it a centre in deference to the creator of the article per WP:MOS. -- Mwalcoff19:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Public Ledger, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Philadelphia Public Ledger. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot01:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm partly satisfied. The concern now is not for a lack of sources but a lack of reliable secondary sources. That's why I have added the primarysources template. Erechtheus02:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:0853035954.01. SS500 SCLZZZZZZZ V1110845779 .jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:0853035954.01. SS500 SCLZZZZZZZ V1110845779 .jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot13:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{Fair use|Book cover}}
This image is of book cover(s), and the copyright for it is most likely owned either by the artist who created the cover(s) or the publisher of the book(s). It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers
to illustrate an article discussing the book in question
Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
Please include in your fair use rationale details of the particular edition (publisher, market & year of publication) of the edition you have used, and also acknowledge any cover artist if such artist is acknowledged in that edition's frontmatter. If the book cover is in the public domain (see Wikipedia:Public domain), then use the appropriate public domain tag rather than this one.
To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.
Ludvikus, It pleases me greatly to see you apparently editing so successfully. Hope you and your family are all doing well. Banno21:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I see from the article is that she wrote a book. What would help establish notability would be what Wikipedia terms "multiple non-trivial" references (e.g. articles in established newspapers or magazines, a book about her (or even a book with maybe an entire chapter about her). I can't get to the library to verify the books you give as references anytime soon. Another thing that might help show notability would be if she's published any other books, or written articles for established newspapers or magazines. Basically, what else has she done besides write that one book? Precious Roy20:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lebzelter
Thanks for contacting me. You should not be overly concerned at the moment. The article cannot be deleted against your will without first going through the process set out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which takes five days. This gives you time to work it up into something more substantial. Also, please don't take the request for proof of notability personally. It is normal for editors to demand proof of notability, and articles can be deleted for failing to provide it. Luckily it is not too hard to provide. At the moment the article is simply too short. You need to include a few paragraphs explaining something about Lebzelter. What is his particular contribution to the study of history? Does he have some theory that is not found elsewhere, or has he been involved in a controversy? Discuss this in the article, and most importantly, provide citations for it from secondary sources. See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Don;t be too ready to enter into an argument on the talk pages at this stage, but instead focus on showing everyone else why we need this article by improving it. Good luck. Banno22:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One last point. Sometimes an article we think should be included does get deleted. This has happened several times to me, and will happen to all serious editors. It's just part of the process. Don;t get too upset if this is the fate of this article. Banno22:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Colin Holmes (British historian), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Colin Holmes (British author). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot00:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? I am not sure what your comment means. I fixed your copy-n-paste move. In the future, please move the page vs. copying the content. When you do a copy-n-paste, it violates the GFDL. The move function correctly maintains the history with the content. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre01:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the difference between Copy/Paste and Move - especially for reminding me that the Move function is a Tab at the top of Wiki pages. Best regards, --Ludvikus13:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see from the bottom that this talk page is "in" 5 article categories, which it should not be. Please add a ":" after the opening "[" which will mean: a) you can see the category name in the text, and b) this talk page will not appear in the category. Thanks. Johnbod13:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have to look in edit mode - they won't appear in reading mode, as they are functioning as categories. The context/subject should narrow it down a lot. It's very bad form just to leave them, I'm afraid. The user page is fine - it's just this one. Johnbod14:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked, and looked, and ..., in the Edit Mode of course, but I still cannot find where these Categories Tags are coming from. I know I did not intentionally put them there. And I know the were there for quite a long time - but no one but you brought the matter to my attention. Can you recommend, or ask, some Wiki expert to help me on this?
Hmmm, I've had a look myself, & then realized they are all, i think, template generated, so I was looking for the wrong thing! There must be a way to use a "find" function in edit mode (or you could copy the whole page into Word) and look for the template text. You should archive the old stuff anyway, & that will make it clear which period they date from, & narrow it down. But I suppose if you've made the effort to look, that shows willing anyway, & you certainly have a lot of templates on your page. Or you could delete the old stuff (which will remain in the history, which would clear those deleted. Johnbod14:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got it!!! I've gone into the History Wiki Mode and was able to determine that these Category Tags came into my pages on and about December 10, 2006. From that I deduced that they are produced by the following format: {{x}}. So now I know that that's what, and where, I should look!!! --Ludvikus14:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you set The Protocols and World Revolution up as a redirect in Nov 06, so can't move to that name (I never understand why not, but anyway). You have set up I think a speedy deletion request so you can recreate. The other way would be to use WP:Requested moves, also quite quick - an admin does all the work. But I think your way should work ok, or someone will give you a message to say why not. It needs an admin either way, I'm afraid. Johnbod21:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the sneaky & quick way to do it (but valid as the X talk page is empty), is to copy the
article to the right page, & turn the X page into a redirect to it (which of course will never be used, but ....). Maybe you can still do that. Johnbod21:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm familiar with that "Sneaky way." But when you do that you not only violate Wiki policy, but you do exactly what that policy is designed to prevent - you loose the History of the article - and maybe even the Talk page. Ludvikus21:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No the history is untouched, but anything on the talk page is stranded in wikispace. I thought it was ok by policy, but you may be right. Johnbod21:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't want to have the following time-waster:
Cut and paste move fixes': To request page histories to be merged,
list them at cut and paste move repairs.
I thought as long as the history is intact somewhere, it's ok. I've just now been doing a merge where the old title remains as a redirect, with its history there - I think that's alright - it's what I normally do.Johnbod22:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I usede to do that too. But now I'd like the numerous Stubs that I start and develop into full Articles to show that I'm the guy who was with it from the very beginning. I think that the Cut & Paste method defeats that objective. --Ludvikus22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Russian: "Протоколы сионских мудрецов", or "Сионские протоколы", see also other titles) is an antisemitic text, first published in 1903, that purports to describe a Jewish and Masonicplot to achieve world domination.
I think it's better for a template to include fewer links to very important articles, rather than many links to articles that — while they're all important — aren't all appropriate for a reader who wants a quick lesson in antisemitism. It's not possible, nor is desirable, for a template to include links to every article about antisemitism.
License tagging for Image:Cause of world unrest lrg.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cause of world unrest lrg.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Talk:Protocols and World Revolution, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a user page from the main/article space. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SQL(Query Me!)06:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! :) No, I didn't leave a note about a book cover.... About the redirect (now deleted) mentioned above.... my mistake, I left out one of the brackets on the template :) SQL(Query Me!)11:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Center for Jewish History
I presume you are talking about my revert of a revision by User:Hadasalmagor. As I have explained on his/her user page, the revision read like an adverisement and some sections seemed to be taken from the Center's homepage (which could be a copyright breach). Thanks. Quantpole14:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Cjh logo2.jpg
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:Cjh logo2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Use of the logo here does not imply endorsement of the organization by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor vice versa.
Fair use//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ludvikus/Archive_2
true
To the uploader:
Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
Please do not use this template to tag non-free icons of computer software. Such items should be tagged with {{Non-free computer icon}} template.
Regarding uses other than in the original article: Check the non-free use criteria and do not assume that existing rationales can be simply copied and pasted, as they may not necessarily apply.
To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.
Image copyright problem with Image:Ackerman005.jpg
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:Ackerman005.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.
Since you want to move it to the text of an article that already exists (as a redirect), you'll need to contact a Wikipedia administrator for assistance, as they'll need to delete the redirect article before moving the current article to that name. -- Hawaiian71715:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. But I already knew that. I thought you were an Administrator. Can you recommend an Administrator for the required action? Or can you be more specific on how I may find one? Thanks. --Ludvikus16:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not change the page in that way. I have posted a comment on the page. You are incorrect, whatever the wikistyle that you've come up with. There's a correct and an incorrect title, and the one you've chosen is incorrect. Wikidea23:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're a funny chap aren't you. I do like steak pie but, not too fond of kidney (since you ask). I'd prefer not to say what I do exactly, because then people might respect what I write - it's always better to be challenged. Especially by nice people like you. (Might you want to archive some of your discussion posts on this page by the way?) Wikidea15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content as you did here. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! -- Jreferee T/C18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an improper method: it destroys the history of the page which indicates who contributed to it. It is a violation of the terms of the GFDL. If you are unable to move a page yourself, ask for help at Wikipedia:Requested moves. (I see you have now done this. But you didn't wait for a response.) Don't do this again. Cut and paste "moves" are always improper. - Nunh-huh18:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The colon at the start of a category, like [[:Category:Category-theoretic categories]], turns it into a normal wikilink that shows the name of the category and lets you click on it to go to that category, instead of putting it in the list of categories at the bottom of the page. Like so: Category:Category-theoretic categories. You should not be putting your user page into categories that describe articles in the main Wikipedia namespace; those categories should only contain Wikipedia articles. Presumably Anarchia was adding the colon to remove your user page from a category in which it should not have been included. But this all has nothing to do with discussion of the administrator's noticeboard, so this discussion should be continued elsewhere, such as your talk page. —David Eppstein19:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading Image:Diveevo.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Ludvikus, at over 200k, this talk page is far too long. You should consider archiving some of the material. You will still be able to access it, but this page will be shorter. At this length, it is quite likely that it is inaccessible to some browsers, and those on slow connections will find your page quite annoying. If you would like a hand with this, just ask. Banno06:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Singerman, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Singerman satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singerman and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Singerman during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Porcupine (prickle me!) 19:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, I am NOT the one who proposed your page for deletion and I NEVER added a delete notice to this page. The only edit I made to Singerman was to remove a hangon tag. See the Revision history for this article. So, you might want to be careful about what you say to people and make sure that when you give "advice" (such as what you left on my page) that you give it to the proper person.
I did agree with the proposed deletion on the AfD page, however after now looking at the page, I see much improvement, and I intend to change my review to "keep". - Rjd006015:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was alerted to this photo by your addition of the "hangon" tag, despite the fact that no one was asking for the image's deletion. Considering that the photo was obviously quite old, I thought it likely that it was public domain. The source website Do you have reason to believe the photo was first published in the book?
As to my math, that's just a function of doing math in my head when I've been on the internet too long. In this case, though, it doesn't matter in the end because the US law refers to anything published outside the U.S. before 1909. Natalie12:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly calm down. Your tone is probably uncivil and definitely not helpful. You have a valid point to make (whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant) which you can make just as well without being unpleasant. --Dweller14:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It's in both messages you've placed on that page. Use of bold and caps is considered shouting. "Do you understand me?" is pretty aggressive. Is English your native language - if not, the latter is certainly excusable - I suggest you remove it. But you should know already about the caps especially. --Dweller14:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your corrections. I've done as you recommended - with 2 exceptions:
(1) "REDIRECT" is caps in the original Wiki usage - or do you think "Wiki" is shouting?
(2) "Do you understand me," in context (especially now that I've cleaned it) is a natural (non-aggresive) question posede to someone who might not be a naitive speaker.
It's better. We don't agree on some of your responses, but no-one says we have to (!) and I certainly appreciate your willingness to amend the text. Cheers. --Dweller16:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed my point. I was wondering if you presumed to speak for another (besides you and me).
Furthermore, for a Wikipedian who stresses the nead for proper Wiki decorum, manners, politeness, etc., don't you think analyzing me in psychological terms breaches those very Wike rules you have asked that I abide by?
That was placed some time ago. The aim was to have a place to keep a Template form (I hope you don't think I'm shouting - I'm using the word technically, having the special Wiki meaning - or should I have said, "wiki" meaning? --Ludvikus16:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still havn't figured out how to generate a blank Wiki form for {{Infobox (books)}} (or memorized the syntax). Can you advise? --Ludvikus16:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An initial capital letter is fine, it's WRITING IN CAPS that's bad etiquette, lol. Re the template, the one you want seems to be {{Infobox books}}. If you visit Template:Infobox Book there are full instructions. The template's supposed to be used on articles, not talk pages, but if you want to play with it before trying it for real, how about editing at User:Ludvikus/sandbox? --Dweller18:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here too, I think you missed my point. I'm fully aware of the Example posted there. But I want a Function I can use. Why does one have to re-tyme the same Form over and over again. I could - everytime the need arises - navigate over there and do a Cut and Paste. Though that's better, it's still inefficient. Do you get me point! --Oops. Am I now being "aggressive" by asking? Ludvikus19:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can copy and paste from there or from any article that uses the template (go to the template page and click "What links here" in the left sidebar. No, you're not being aggressive. --Dweller20:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One way to proceed woulf be to set up Miszabot to automatically archive your talk page. The instructions are at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. If you like, I will set this up to archive any stuff older than 7 days. That way, you would not need to worry about it ever again.
If you would like more control, I suggest using a permanent link archive. The Wiki database keeps a history of every edit. To create an archive in this way, one simply deletes the material that is not desired, and then creates a link to the history page from immediately before the deletion. This is the way my talk page is archived.
Let me know which you prefer. Banno20:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Banno,
Since I'm not an Administrator, I don't have much use for old Discussions.
However, I like the idea of keeping records.
So please do the Archiving for me as you proposed - second way - the way you have it.
And please archive everything - I don't need the last 7 days immediately & that way I could decorate the page from scratch.
Again, please archive My page the way Your page is Arcived.
Hi! I've fixed navigation bar. If you'll need any help with the template you can ask me and I'll see what I can do. And thanks for the barnstar. M0RD00R18:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^Quinton, Anthony; ed. Ted Honderich (1996). "Philosophy". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |title= at position 14 (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^Quinton, Anthony; ed. Ted Honderich (1996). "Philosophy". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |title= at position 14 (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Thanks for uploading Image:Warrant for Genocide - 1897959494.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).
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
