User talk:Ludvikus
|
||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Here's a reference: "The Case Against Faction" [1]. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC) I'd like to see a Wikipedia article about this journalist. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Michael Goodwin is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist known for never letting the political elite forget their job is to represent taxpayers.
He started his career with The New York Times as a housing reporter and then City Hall bureau chief.
He was the editorial page editor at the Daily News, where he directed a series of reports on the Apollo Theater that won the Pulitzer.
A series documenting abuse of farmworkers earned the board the Polk Award.
In 2000, he was named executive editor of the News and returned to column writing in 2004.
Sir Anthony Hungerford's 'Memorial'Sir Anthony Hungerford's 'Memorial' is partially available on the Web and might be of interest to PBS. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see an article about this journalist who currently works for the examiner.com, a journal published on the Web at "www.examiner.com/new_york" --Ludvikus (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Ackerman005.jpg Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ackerman005.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Praemonitus Praemunitus - Contents - vi. (1920).jpgThank you for uploading File:Praemonitus Praemunitus - Contents - vi. (1920).jpg. 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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged. If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Request for unblock Ludvikus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I understand what "disruption" means now. If I'm unblocked, I intend to contact an experienced editor, or administrator, if I have any issue I'm concerned about to avoid any confrontations. I understand that I need to be extremely careful because with my record it's very, very, easy to get me Blocked again. At the moment, I'm interested in responding to the two image deletion questions raised by the editor immediately above. Decline reason: I've read what you had to say above at User_talk:Ludvikus#One_step_forward_.... This does not suggest to me that your attitude has changed. You are not happy with the words and actions of PBS, who is one of the admins who has blocked you in the past. The advice he gave you above is very typical mainstream advice on how to avoid problems on Wikipedia. If you would truly respond to his suggestions, my thinking might be different. Your general promise to be more careful doesn't outweigh a lengthy block log. In the past, you were blocked for as long as six months. If being more careful is something you could easily do, you would have done so by now. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. No article on this organization yet? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Ludvikus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: (1) I was Blocked because of a controversy involving User:Loremaster concerning my defending against "personal attacks" on the Talk page about New World Order. I should not have responded to the Personal Attacks there by User:Loremaster. That's because - as I now know - I have a record that can be used against me as a "disruptor." Therefore, i really should have ignored that. Even a defensive response on a Talk page can be construed as disruption. I understand now that, with my record, I must permit most editors, especially established editors, and administrators "win" their arguments. That was my mistake. I believed that by defending against User:Loremaster's personal attacks I could not possibly be Blocked. Obviously, I was mistaken. (2) Regarding Administrator PBS, he was NOT my Blocking administrator. He had caused me to be Restricted from editing a handful of article related to "historical revisionism." I did not violated that Restriction which he imposed. Neither do I intend to do that in the future. I'm fully aware of the concerns PBS has regarding those articles. I therefore would contact him on his Talk page before I make any significant contribution to those handful of articles. At the moment, I do not have an interest in them anyway. It is important to understand that PBS had nothing to do with this current Block involving User:Loremaster. Furthermore, the "advice" that PBS is giving me here is general, and totally unresponsive to the cause of my actual current Block because it does not deal with what had happened between User:Loremaster and myself regarding the "New World Order" article. Again, I did not violate any of the Restrictions which PBS had imposed on me related to the New World Order family of articles. Therefore, the advice given by PBS is not helpful to my understanding as to how I am to avoid causing a "disruption" when I believe an editor, such as User:Loremaster is engaged in personal attacks. It would have been extremely useful to me, and therefore, to Wikipedia, if PBS had specifically addressed the last cause of my current indefinite Blockage. But he does not do so in the above. Non of his references deal specifically with my problem regarding my confrontation with just one working editor at "New World Order," namely User:Loremaster. Therefore, the only way I can reasonably, and rationally, avoid any future "disruptions," is being extremely careful if, or when, I deal with anything related to these two editors in the future, should I ever be unblocked. Again, I'm Blocked for "disruption." But no one has taken the trouble to explain exactly how I had been disruptive. In fact, to the best of my recollection, I over-reacted to an Administrator who wrote about "holding a gun to my head." I should have ignored that. By responding to that set of words, the actual Blocking administrator, with the support of his colleague, decided to use that as the cause of an immediate indefinite Block. That was a mistake I made (I see that now in hindsight). Rather, I should have done what User:Loremaster had done - take a relatively long break from Wikipedia, and let everyone else discuss my Blockage. That was another mistake on my part. I engaged in what is known as "Wikilawyering" at Wikipedia - another "no no." In the future, I'll not bother with that either - it obviously doesn't work, but merely creates another opportunity, or reason, for being Block. So, there, you can obviously see that I have learned much - especially how to avoid being Blocked for "disruption." *PS: Correction: PBS, I believe, supported my Blockage, I believe. To that extent, he did have a hand in my being Blocked indefinitely. However, I dis not violate his Restrictions he had imposed. So my controversy with him is unrelated to my current Block - but I'm quite sure he thinks otherwise, and maintains that both are instances of my disruption. How so, I do not understand. But that does not matter - because I intend to listen to him carefully in the future if I'm un-blocked, & he chooses to communicate with me, so that there would be no "disruption." Decline reason: First of all, I would advise you to review WP:TL;DR. Wading through a wall of text makes it hard for a reviewing admin to understand your request. Secondly, after I did wade through your request, it's clear that you are blaming everyone else for your block. Please read our guide to requesting an unblock and post another request. TNXMan 19:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Nothing on him? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes). In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list. To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. He deserves an article. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Praemonitus Praemunitus - Contents - v. (1920).jpgThank you for uploading File:Praemonitus Praemunitus - Contents - v. (1920).jpg. 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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged. If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see a Wiki article about the above - or include it as the official name of said organization. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
She's funny too: "Bad Sex": [7]. Maybe "Porochita" is her pen name (the name of her first lover. But he couldn't handle her real last name - which described his "Khak" as "pour"? Just kidding. I think she's a notable writer and the "stub" on her could use expansion (to make up for her disappointment as a fresh[wo]man at Sara Lawrence? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC) He's a founder of Hamas, but there's no article about him. His son converted to Christianity and wrote the book, "Son of Hamas." --Ludvikus (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC) There's no article about this contemporary scholar. Should there be one? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University. There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited! Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes). In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list. To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.  The article Chresmologue has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4 Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM. A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery. This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too! You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list. To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC) It's undefined. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I'd like to see an article on this American professor of mathematics. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2010[[ (UTC) This historian of science and mathematics deserves a Wikipedia article, in my opinion. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC) How come there is no link to it in the page on the 2011 Egyptian demonstrations - 2011 Egyptian protests - at the moment? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Ludvikus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Please unblock - I've learned my lessons very well during this long time. Decline reason: I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 22:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Can you be more specific? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Ludvikus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: "Persistent disruption, and no sign of ever being able to edit collaboratively." The foregoing is the reason given for my unblock. I've discovered that an objective method for me to measure "disruption" can be gauged by me by measuring the amount of "bites" spent in disputes with other editors - including the time spent on Talk Pages. Therefore, I intend not spend any time disputing a point if there is any indication of "resistance" to my point on the part of another editor. I know now that if there are 10 editors who collaborate with me, but 1 who does not, it is the 1 that does not who will get the greater weight by me - because I have a record of "disruption." In order for me to work "collaboratively," I now must avoid every encounter of a "dispute" because it can most likely result in the conclusion that I'm "disruptive" because of my cumulative record of being judged previously of being "disruptive." An easy way out of such a situation is "to take a holiday" from Wikipedia. This is my "sign" of being able to work collaboratively. I understand that my "posting" will be responded to. And no response will mean collaborative acceptance of an edit. Please feel free to ask me any question, if this is deemed insufficient. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Decline reason: To the extent this makes any sense, it does not convince me that you understand the reason for your block. Sandstein 21:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. The latter is not Linked within the former article. Can someone supply the link please? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
There's an interesting, and useful (with references), article on the various spellings of the name here: [8] --Ludvikus (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Reinhold Hoppe (1816-1900)This 19th century mathematician is responsible for coining the word Polytope. He wrote the book, titled "Lehrbuch der analytischen geometrie. In zwei teilen." which is online in PDF format." --Ludvikus (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hasn't any Wikipedian though of the connection above between the two terms? --19:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC) That's also related to the other two above. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC) {{Unblock on hold | 1=blocking administrator | 2=I intend to spend not much time per week at Wikipedia if I'm unblocked, so there will be little chance of my being persistently disruptive. I hope this now makes "sense." I have no intention of being disruptive. I understand now that I must avoid all provocations. I also understand that even on non-content pages, too much discussion can be construed as disruption - especially if it consumes too much editors' time. | 3=On hold awaiting response from editor requesting unblock. --'''[[User:Selket|Selket]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Selket|Talk]]</sup> 17:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)}}
The above needs disambiguation - to distinguish from the author of The Story of Numbers. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- I've removed the hold on your unblock. The arguments you have advanced to be unblocked have clearly failed to convince any administrators that unblocking you would be a good idea. Additionally, I am going to revoke your ability to edit this page. You appear to have been attempting to get other users to edit-by-proxy for you while blocked. Talk page access during a block is a courtesy extended solely for the purpose of discussing the block, nothing else. If you wish to appeal this block further you will need to email the Arbitration Committee as detailed at WP:BASC. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Mentorship
User:Beeblebrox Please could you remove the block on this page so that user:Ludvikus can respond to my proposals. Which if there is a consensus will result in an unblock.
Back in September 2009 I put some points to Ludvikus (User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 9#Some sugestions) his response showed that "he did not get it" and as far as I can tell he still does not get it. Clearly an indefinite ban is not going to rehabilitate him.
- A problem with some Wikipedia articles
One of the self imposed projects I am currently working on is to update PD templates and then look at articles that those templates are used in to fix the citations in the articles so that the meet the attribution requirements of our Plagiarism guideline. For example I have replaced the template WaceBio with {{DCBL}}. But providing a template which allows more complete citations is only part of the problem. Many of these PD templates and articles were put into Wikipedia before WP:V was thought of or widely adopted and there are many articles copied from PD sources marked with {{refimprove}} which need citations added here are some example articles to which I have recently added in-line citations:
- Patriarch Macedonius II of Constantinople copy with a few minor changes;
- Patriarch Fravitta of Constantinople close paraphrase;
- Patriarch Euphemius of Constantinople copy and close paraphrase of two merged PD sources;
- Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople copy and close paraphrase of three merged PD source
One and two are reasonably easy to cite but as you can see articles 3 and 4 are more difficult and took me well over an hour each. There are tens of thousands of these articles. For example see the hidden categories for EB1911|. An extreme example of of this type of problem is the Wikipedia article Abraxas. As the article stands it is claimed that there is text from 5 different PD sources, and writing from experience (but without checking) it seems to me the some of the inline citations are copied from a PD source in violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. In fact it is probable that several of the PD sources are not used, and that they should be moved into a further reading section as ordinary entries without the attribution see for example {{Cite DCBL}}
It was a rewrite of {{Schaff-Herzog}} that brought me back to Abraxas. It was the first article that I looked at. There are another
205 Wikipedia articles for which the entry in Schaff-Herzog needs to be identified and the text in the Wikipeida article needs to have in-line citations to the copied text.
- A solution and conditions
I have emailed user:Ludvikus, and have suggested that under my mentorship he could contribute constructively to the project in the area outlined above. He email me back indicating that he is interested in doing this, but we have not discussed the details.
I would suggest that user:Ludvikus work on a set of articles that use a particular PD template and the initial one would be {{Schaff-Herzog}}.
It is of course unlikely that Ludvikus will need to move articles and if he were to need to do so then I would insist that any such move went to WP:RM. He would be under a strict 0RR -- If any editor was to object to the edits he made he would have to revert them and inform me, so that we could discuss it further.
The advantage of this approach is that he is unlikely to be working on any articles in areas where he has had problems in the past. It will give him a chance to work cooperatively with other editors and over time (many months not many days) the restrictions can be gradually lifted at my discretion.
If at any time I think that there are any problems that require more detailed sanctions, then user:Ludvikus must intermediately agree to them abide by them, without any argument.
If during this mentorship problems arise that I think shows that user:Ludvikus is an irreconcilable, then I will reimpose the block indefinite and propose at WP:ANI that it is made permanent.
user:Ludvikus do you agree to terms and conditions unequivocally and unconditionally in their entirety? -- PBS (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
A couple of points:
- Bringing a user back from a long block solely to train them to help you with a task you assigned yourself is unprecedented as far as I know.
- Your own confidence in the success of this plan seems quite low.
- I think it would be best if you consult with the other admins who refused to unblock in the past before proceeding, I suggest notifying them all of this discussion
- Ludvikus will also have to agree to stop his attempts to get others to edit by proxy for him if he wants even this talk page to remain open to him.
So, I have basically no faith that this will work and think it is a terrible idea from the ground up, but it's your time to waste if you want to, and I will soften the block to allow talk page editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is not to "train" him to help me, it is to work n a limited area of the Wikipedia and in doing so to improve Wikipedidia and to learn how to co-operate with other editors. There are a number of editors who I know are blocked because the activly flout the communities rules in a persistent and deliberate way ie in bad faith. In my opinion Ludvikus's problems seem to have been disruption caused by an inability to understand why his actions were disruptive, not through deliberate bad faith actions. Hopefully if he agrees to my mentorship this is a way in which he can learn why his previous behaviour was disruptive and not repeat it. I will notify the administrators who have declined to unblock Ludvikus since this block was imposed. -- PBS (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
(1) I certainly feel an obligation to editor Philip Baird Shearer - for going on a limb to be my mentor. Therefore, my obligation to him is now 100% not to get blocked if I get re-instated. (2) But this "proxy" business you now raised - I have no idea how you concluded that it looks like I tried to get others to act as "proxies" for me. I really don't have a good idea what you mean. So how can I rationally agree to your "proxy" constrained? The only editor I communicated with is Philip Baird Shearer - and he was not an editor who was on my side previously - quite the contrary. In fact, I am very pleasantly surprised that he has contact me (by email) to try to get me reinstated - if I agree to his terms; and I certainly do. (3) Since editor Philip Baird Shearer is the only editor I had any communication with, I cannot understand how that email communication has anything to do with "proxy" editing; quite the contrary, ed. PBS wants me to edit items he proposes, not want I choose to edit.
- Therefore, I do not know what you mean by "proxy" editing. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)