User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 11

2166:

with those who hold the better judgment, and discount the other less sound views. I'm paraphrasing what you've said above. But if that's what you are advising me, you are gravely uninformed as to the reality facing Editors who are not also Administrators. In my current predicament I must ALWAYS side with the Majority view - that's what I understand. And I do not wish to entrap you. I've actually contacted a long-standing, and respected Administrator who emphasized that I go with the Consensus. How you can advise me otherwise, is beyond my powers of comprehension. So please correct me if I misunderstood your advice. Tell me precisely what you mean by Consensus as I'm to follow it in my current "bad Wiki reputation predicament.

4800:"better" counts for articles, not for discussions. When you add content to an article, you don't own it, others can edit it freely. When you make a comment, the comment is yours. When you modify someone else's comment, you are changing it's tone to something the user may have not intended. I know you meant no harm in your edit; and I chose not to revert it because your replies count on that enumeration, so your replies would no longer make as much sense. Plus it didn't bother me much, I was just giving you some advice. Guidelines for editing others' comments may be found at 4357: 2800:

page and a bot takes your post and puts it onto WP:RM. As a frequent maintainer of WP:RM, I look over all the listings to see that they are properly formatted and fix any that need fixing, so they will be listed properly. My edit of the talk page was simply so that your move request was properly formatted so that the bot could pick it up and put it onto WP:RM in a meaningful manner. The bot does not understand formatting *'s or #'s and runs all the sentences together until if finds a time stamp, in this case not the correct one.

3873:

diffs unlike your "rotten seaweed" thing up above. If you make a charge against another person it is your duty to prove the charge; dont ask them to prove that they haven't done what they are charged with. You are charging me with sarcasm and disruptive behaviour. IMHO you have indulged in veiled treats with your not-at-all-funny boxing joke in which you have accused me of wanting a fistfight. And your request that I should be blocked because I do not agree to unblocking a blocked user is weird. --

2901:, and not by people posting them there. The bot takes what people write on the talk page and puts them there, unlike what was done up until very recently. Before the bot took over most of my time maintaining WP:RM was spent fixing formatting and closing them. Now most of my time is spent formatting for the bot. Over 80% of my edits by preference are as an IP user. That leaves over a thousand that are not, so I am neither an old timer, nor a new editor. The 4341:, the editor who was substantially involved in my getting Blocked for two (2)! Welcome to my Talk page. What can I do for you? What's the relevance of your remark about? Are you trying to provoke me into a Confrontation with you? You tell me what you think the right response to your remark above should be? What is it that you want from me? And what, if anything, do you know about the subject of this discourse, in which you've just interjected yourself? -- 31: 1711:. I did not then understand that being objectively correct was not how Knowledge (XXG) works. So somehow I was Banned, or Blocked, (I still don't no the difference. I subsequently learned that "getting along" was extremely important. But at the time I also did not know how to avoid being provoked by insults and humiliations. That I think I'm better at now. The number one rule is - don't do to them what they are doing to you. 2088:"I am glad that you opened that dialogue with PBS. Indeed, Knowledge (XXG) runs on open, polite, respectful communication that eventually leads to consensus. Although you are currently under some restrictions from some articles, I hope that PBS has been able to advise you what you need to do in order to eventually have those restrictions lifted. Feel free to 1718:. There I alienated not merely the substantial contributor to the article, but I didn't fully understand what he could do to me merely because he also happened to be an Administrator. But because there was nothing specific I had done wrong, he Banned/Blocked me for two years for being "disruptive." What he did is basically make reference to my previous conduct at 4748:. I don't know you you're budding in into a matter that concerns Verdatum. I will apologize to him if he objects. It can be easily remedied by posting his original block. Anyway, I will not do it to him or you in the future since you might not like it. But you must agree, 100% that my version is far better!!! And that's what counts. -- 4570:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 1744:. I think the mistake I made there was not fully appreciate that my editing might appear like a POV Fork by the editor who was also an Administrator. Unfortunately, I was not able to convince the Editor who is still Restricting me from even participating on Talk pages of said articles that I had made a 4687:

Previously, summarizing to condense a talk page was a non-conservative refactoring method. Especially since 2006, the Knowledge (XXG) community has more and more preferred wholesale archival of talk page discussions instead of summarizing, as archival preserves a fuller record of discussion, does not

2799:

You may be completely missing the forest for the trees. My edit has nothing to do with the article or the name of the article, but is simply procedural about how WP:RM works. Up until recently you could post something onto WP:RM that you wanted people to discuss. No more. What you do is flag the talk

2650:

Thanks a million. I'm still study the above, I will do my best to absorb what you've just directed me to. Also, I have other issues to attend to. In the mean time I'm following this rule: "Proceed with caution." But I'm still curious why you have this - all numbers - name. It made me think you were a

2058:

Thanks to all of you who will help me get out of this situation in which I'm now cornered by the above only TWO individuals, WP editors, particularly by the Administrator whose clearly and obviously not exercising his special privileges entrusted to him by Knowledge (XXG) - that's clearly shown above

1314:

Your analysis is inaccurate. The Reversion was simply by you on one issue. And a Reversion by another on another issue. I'm not a mind reader, so I cannot anticipate who will Revert my Good faith editing. You are also completely inaccurate in Citing the Consensus rule to me - I always seek Consensus.

4485:

Ludvikus, please take a look in the mirror. The only person to blame for getting you blocked for two years is ... you. It was your disruptive behavior, on dozens of pages, that earned you a block—your third lengthy involuntary vacation from Knowledge (XXG), I might add. Please stop making pretend it

4254:

Great. Let's keep talking. I respect the fact that you are able to apologize to me. Too few human beings are able to do that. I apologize to you too for upsetting you by that image. I just meant that we fight here with words. No wonder there's no Peace in the real word. What I would like ery much is

2905:

for WP:RM has a section on formatting requests. It's a little confusing now because that page used to be called "Moving guidelines for administrators", and the link was called "Administrator instructions", until someone pointed out that not only non-admins but even IP users can close move requests

4859:

in his place. And since he (Arthur) cannot find anything against me, he's here complaining about my "enumeration." But what counts for me is having a good working relation with you, Verdatum. So tell why you're flip-flopping on me. What's the beef? Where do you get the idea that someone thinks he

2683:

5)I'll try to look into all that as soon as I get a chance. At least now I know which articles are of concern. My rough guess is - is that you're saying there's an inconsistency between two place. If that's so, I'll try to help to bring about conformity between the two WP:spaces. Have a nice day,

2165:

However, I can tell you about one point upon which I disagree with you. My reputation among the vast majority of Administrators is extremely poor. That's because of my "Wikicriminality" record. I'm labeled a "Disruptor" and a "Confronter." So you are absolutely mistaken when you say I should side

1764:

What I do do (nice pun from a Mel Brooks film) is attempt to stop the Personal Attack when it occurs and distracts me from the discourse at hand. I only pursue it when it affects the meaning on a page which another might misunderstand. Now I have to go. There are more points - but I'll try to get

1653:

a demand or condition; I believe that open discussion of your agreement would reduce the possibility of your being blocked due to a misunderstanding of your unblock conditions. If they are written out where any reviewing administrator could see them, we could get any misunderstandings dealt with

3872:

that you had been called disruptive in the past without anyone having asked you to do so. Why then do you complain that I have researched your past. If you feel I have made any personal attacks , please report it to the administrators. Of course first make sure you have the right

2328:

now, and what you would have put there no longer shows up. When entries are either too lengthy, or get run together by the bot, the sig is duplicated and the entry split up, or simply replaced with something to the effect of (see talk page). It may look odd on the talk page, but is necessary for

4377:

I merely try my best to stay neutral in my edits. I do this by following the policies and guidelines. When you edited other users' comments, it appeared to me as though you had a misunderstanding of the talkpage guidelines, so I put a cordial note on your talkpage. There's nothing wrong with

1568:

has effectively said - that Administrators are editors with special privileges. And you should not make my experience at Knowledge (XXG) particularly miserable just because you are an Administrator. So let's start all over again, come to an understanding, and I'll Archive this page so that your

1632:"Consensus is not a majority vote. Every opinion counts. Consensus accounts for dissent and addresses it, although it does not always accommodate it. An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus. An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus." 1725:

To make I long story short, I eventually, I think after about 1 1/2 years I asked to be un-blocked. In my un-block I promised that I understood the need not to "Confront" another editor. And a nice Administrator accepted that and terminated my Block/Ban about seven (7) months before

487:, except that you are alone against at least two active editors at the present time. Suffice it to say that I think you are completely wrong, and your doing things that you considered correct that other editors considered completely wrong led to at least some of your blocks. I 2261:

Some would consider any pure revert of another editor's edit starting a "confrontation"; I wouldn't go that far, but reinstating and edit of yours that was reverted for a substantive reason would be "confrontation", whether the substantive reason is objectively justified, or

1495:

Although the matter described in the section title is closed, your last two messages in this thread indicate you clearly fail to understand the word "consesnus", either in the English language, or as used on Knowledge (XXG), so it wouldn't be honest on my part not to let you

2924:

Oops! Sorry for the "gilt trip." I was only joking. Apparently it was too strong a dose of medicine for you to swallow .... I goota go. Will explain more later. You did nothing wrong - I've only been trying to suggest that you get a better name for yourself than about three

203:

It changed the meaning of my comments in context, as the some of the "nonsense" you were adding was some of the same edits that I reverted and requested you stop making. If you let me rephrase (including the term "nonsense") in my new comment, it might be acceptable. —

1569:

Knowledge (XXG) reputation remains intact. I sincerely want to work with you. But you must stop provoking me into a Confrontation with you. I promised myself I will not Confront another. So stop backing me into a corner, and let me do my job. Do you understand me now? --

3017:

The reason for asking, is that the way you like to break up paragraphs into little bits is more understandable if the reason is that you are using a translation program. For people who can read English without a translation program, flowing paragraphs are easier to

4389:

own their comments. Other users' comments shouldn't be changed in ways that might be against that user's wishes. I have no problem assuming good faith here; perhaps you didn't realize that anyone would find fault with such a simple edit as adding some numbers.

3610:, study of my past record regarding whether I was disruptive, etc., indicates that it's pointless at this time to answer your questions, so I'll simply ignore you until you address me in a civil, non-confrontational, non-provovative, and non-disruptive manner. 4770: 4183: 830: 785: 4850:

of your proposal made in that Talk article. Why are you switching to a discussion of ownership of Content articles? What does ownership of articles have to do with anything? I certainly appreciate your advice. But I hope you realize that, as I believe,

3757:

be Blocked for 24 hours for failure to assist us all in determining whether or not the above user should be Blocked. Thanks again for helping me identify the issue. Have a nice day (as a friendly aside, I do look forward eventually to editing the nine

2947:

Thanks a million!!! Will study this complicated stuff - but slowly, and in bits. I'm extremely grateful that you pointed me to this stuff. I'd like to say that I'll never forget you - but I cannot remember that numerous numerological name you go by:

2100:

interaction styles. Show the Knowledge (XXG) community that you're a valuable and then valued contributor. Show everyone that you follow the core policies. After a period of time, check with PBS to see if you're doing better ... indeed,

1554:

explain it to me exactly as it applies in this situation. What you are saying to me now is totally useless. My understanding of "consensus" at Knowledge (XXG) is conform to the majority of the editors on an issue. As regards my understanding of the

4466:

is back. Can you please advise me what the right thing for me to do, in the light of the fact that I promised not to engage in a Confrontation with any editor? What purpose has he in interjecting himself about a conversation between you and me?

1823:) 22:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Well, it might be a good idea if it meant you would seek consensus before adding nonsense to the article, but it's clear that's not the case. The next step is requesting reconsideration of your unblock. — 4563: 4743:

You're entitled to your opinion. I say that enumeration not significant. As you say, "some" might call it significant. But most might not. The one who counts in this is Verdatum. And I would like to here him on that. Anyway, I did it in

4233:

For the moment, I will keep everthing else aside and focus on your apology. You apology leads me to beleive that you honestly meant it as a joke; not as a threat. I'm sorry for having misunderstood it and taking it as a threat. Peace.

135:

Stop posting on my talk page. I'm not interested in engaging in debate. I just wish (probably in vain) that you would go away. As for personal attacks, I tell like it is. If you don't like, you can always make a complaint.

3825:

histories, as I understand it, so I was trying to trace those. In addition, there was discussion exactly where you found it. But I didn't bother to go into great detail, because I was already quite convinced that opponent

4439:. I appreciate and accept your explanation. And I hope to mlearn from it. But now let me tell you the reality of how life really is here at Knowledge (XXG) regarding my person. Above is the unsolicited interjection of 2906:(but only if the result is "no move"). However, it includes more than just closing instructions. Perhaps it should be simply called "WP:RM/Maintenance instructions". WP:RM is exactly five years and two days old today. 1806:

Hi. I'd like you to add your name to the list within the Wiki Project article above since I'm aware of your very strong interest in this subject. And I do sincerely desire to find common ground with you.

1559:

now characterized as inadequate by you, that's merely a Personal Attack on me. And since you're an Administrator at Knowledge (XXG), it is you who should know that better than I. So you have my permission to

1109:

Well, it might be a good idea if it meant you would seek consensus before adding nonsense to the article, but it's clear that's not the case. The next step is requesting reconsideration of your unblock. —

1757:

I also make sure that no editing of mine looks remotely like a POV Fork, or any kind of Fork, though I do not yet know the distinction. But it doesn't matter. I know what a Fork in general is - and I avoid

1068:

3557:

Man ,you are amazing! Do you see my signature anywhere on that page? And where does Gaunkaar's name figure on that page? Then what was your basis for claiming that I said "smells of rotten sea weed"? --

4855:

is an Administrator and he's here merely fishing for an excuse to get me Blocked from Knowledge (XXG). I have no reason to believe in his Good faith anymore - especially since he's done nothing to put

2105:

is not a bad thing for you a couple of months from now. Actions always speak louder than words - show us how good of an editor - both by quality of edits AND quality of interactions - you can be."

1564:

that remark of yours out of my Talk page - because it only makes You look Bad, not me. After that please inform me how I should interpret "consensus" according to you. Let me again remind you what

2749:

3) There's also possible confusion, at least because when we "speak" Capital letters are not "heard." So NOTHING should follow from Capitalization practice as to how articles ought to be Titled.

4255:

for us both to have a civil discussions in the future. I know nothing about Goa. Regarding India, I have great respect for its great and ancient Civilization - especially since it gave us

3751:

s being Blocked, or Banned, the Ban or Block should be immediately Rescinded. That I'm sure of now 100%. I hope this Helps us all to make Knowledge (XXG) a better place. I suggest that

3867:::::::::First of all, why have you imitated my signature above this line?. Secondly, I did not study your past records (not that it is not allowed), but you yourself declared 3047:

communication skills far outperformed (and still do) in communication my messages. However, I find my style is far more readable than the culture we know have. My inspiration are (a)

2859:

On the other hand - perhaps your really just an insignificant novice who hasn't learned yet how to open an account with a human-sounding name? (Maybe I'm joking. But maybe not!). --

4864:. You realize that now, of course? Please let me know. And if I care about anyone - it's you. But are you afraid to be my Wiki Colleague because - let's say no one else is? -- 1834:. Adding dates to section headers is questionable, at best, but I probably would have let it go if you hadn't gone on to damage the article further. Adding of incorrect 1259:: The NWO (ct) section was not referring to the book, but to a related concept. (And declaring a minor edit appears to be an attempt to hide the significance of your edits.) 3148:

also exists in the world. Don't you think that this is an ideal environment for that sort of stuff? Also, remember this, bullies are basically cowards. So they do what the

1137:. Adding dates to section headers is questionable, at best, but I probably would have let it go if you hadn't gone on to damage the article further. Adding of incorrect 1262:

There seems no reason to include dates in section headings, although that is more a matter of style. As I said, I wouldn't have reverted that except for the other edits.

736:: I did not Create a New WP: rule: "WP:Confrontation": "You must instantly agree with what any other editor tells you. A failure to do so constitutes a Confrontation." -- 2902: 1646:

discussions, the nominator may be the only one argueing for deletion, but his/her opinion may constitute a consensus, as none of the other arguments are relevant.

2036:

So by all of the above, I'm at the moment - while being extremely disrupted in my work at Knowledge (XXG) - being an EXCELLENT Wikipedian, wouldn't you all agree?

4688:

lead to accidental (or disruptive) misrepresentation of other editors' opinions, and does not inadvertently remove material that may turn out to be needed later.

4446:. He's the editor who substantially caused me to be Blocked for two years. When I came back after exiled for two years and made a mistake regarding an alleged, 2045:

I really want Peace. But I do not know how to produce or get it with these two WP users; I have a great working relationship with everyone else, at the moment.

2151:

I think you're mistaken here. I think it's best if you explain to me exactly where you believe I fail to understand. That would be extremely helpful to me. --

2055:

So please help me and thereby you will make Knowledge (XXG) a better Space to be in for editors who wish to contribute Content, and Technical editing as well.

1722:. So I really didn't know how exactly I was "disruptive." I do recall that he threaded me first, and I think I irritated him. So he "banned" me for two-years. 4693:

The only thing refactoring discusses is "poor formatting". Just because comments aren't enumerated in a way you like doesn't mean they may be reformatted. -

4489:

Evidently you were lying when you asked to be unblocked, because you've been involved in one confrontation after another. If you continue down this road, I

369:

is also not the subject of the conspiracy theory, although it has some concepts in common. (In fact, the section heading is probably entirely incorrect.)

4397:

I'm not going to touch whatever issues you may have with Arthur. You shouldn't be concerned about being blocked so long as you continue to try to discuss

4613:

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

1844:

templates is just wrong, and shows that you are incapable at the present time of constructively editing Knowledge (XXG). If you don't understand why

869:

I have absolutely no interests in any confrontations at Knowledge (XXG) which would lead to a "block" - so there's really no need to block me any longer.

618:

I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor.

4567: 1147:

templates is just wrong, and shows that you are incapable at the present time of constructively editing Knowledge (XXG). If you don't understand why

4238: 4206:, and engage the the war of ideas of ideas I do apologize to you, ask for your forgiveness - and I am immediately deleting or removing said image of 3561: 3397: 2238:

that "majority" and "consensus" are independent determinations; in some circumstances, a supermajority is given as an indication of consensus, but a

3102:? Maybe for when dealing with PBS, the angel heart one would be useful, and for the guy who made the seaweed remark, maybe the humorous pork pie.-- 4124:(a) This is certainly not a display of a humble honest opinion. I'd describe it as a provocative, confrontational, and disruptive choice of words. 3762:

articles, but you can be sure I'll be extremely careful in not appearing to violate ANY WP rule, even by mistake - I'll be extremely cautious). --

2033:

And I've been implicitly informed by another Administrator who I respect, that a Dialogue on my Talk page is a good place to work out differences.

3737:

Appreciate extremely your helpfulness. As you can see from the above, I certainly am not sure regarding the question you raise. However, I'm now

1414:

I don't know what you're talking about. The very Instant two(2) editors sought that this WikiProject be closed, I followed their Consensus. What

1904: 1061: 798: 769: 761: 3877: 3390:

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

3277: 2907: 2848: 2801: 2779:

Now if you would be kind enough to conform my position to the above ellaboration, or explication, of my position, I would be most grateful.

2385: 2330: 4571: 2092:

the discussions on the pages that you have restrictions, and see how the conversation takes place - model your own interactions after the

1702:

OK. You're beginning to indicate a good faith attempt here at some kind of understanding with me, so I'll try to oblige you as best I can.

804:

but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion.

156:

I accidentally removed the section break, but it changes the meaning of my edits, and should not be done, even on your own talk page. —

4861: 4559: 4512: 4324: 978:

But I will not allow myself to be Bullied or Confronted by this kind of Clear and Obvious violations prohibited Knowledge (XXG) conduct.

1678:

to determine the consensus. Please let me know what forum you choose to discuss my actions, so I can have an opportunity to respond.)

3384:

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

2980: 1643: 2856:

Don't understand that the hard-working Human editors - who are unpaid - must be made to believe that your really also a human being?

1681:

And I should add that I may not block you (except possibly for blatent vandalism, which I do not expect to be a problem), as I'm an

2027:

Therefore, I would like to discuss with you all who visit my Talk page what I ought to do about this predicament I find myself in.

3208:

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

2754: 1642:

editors is not productive; weighing their opinions (as they reflect Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines) is. Frequently, in

1626: 1608: 565:

Let me tell it to you again - to make sure you understand me - all you have to do is show me that another editor agrees with you,

106: 3686: 880: 663: 4120:"have indulged in veiled treats with your not-at-all-funny boxing joke in which you have accused me of wanting a fistfight." 3896: 3964: 1685:

administrator. I would have to contact the blocking or unblocking administrator, or bring up the matter at a user conduct

116:. Thank you for that. However, there are these characterizations about me which WP prohibits. I would appreciate it if you 4623:

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

3240:

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

97: 89: 84: 72: 2897:

I was never calling or thinking of you as a bot. WP:RM listings (other than the uncontroversial ones) are now created by

1649:

Could you explain, in a separate section, why you were blocked and what you agreed to in order to be unblocked? This is

1962:(3) And the inappropriate threat "The next step is requesting reconsideration of your unblock" is extremely disruptive. 67: 59: 3990: 3099: 340:

is referring to a real concept; the etymology of the conspiracy theory is not related to the reality of the concept.

4290: 4108: 4088: 4068: 4048: 4028: 2832: 2782:

You are, of course, not expected to agree with me, if you do not believe my position does not conform to Wiki rules.

2845:

How "dare" you (I'm only using this word for dramatic effect - thing of me too as a possible "Bot" keep a name like

2109:

Good code of conduct to follow for any Wikipedian who posts here. I intend to follow it everywhere in Wiki space. --

168:

You may delete (or manually archive) the section, but you may not change the context of other editors' comments. —

4273: 4174: 3928: 3908: 3690: 3626: 3482: 3331: 2611: 2476: 38: 2728: 986: 3729: 3682: 3071: 876: 659: 4356: 1729:

When I returned I simply avoided the articles that related to the Administrators involved in the B/B: I avoided

3662: 2911: 2805: 2685: 2389: 2334: 1274:

And this discussion should have been at the article talk page. As you are being reverted by 3 active editors,

4667: 3039:, to study typing. The way I write on Knowledge (XXG) is a method I invented when I started writing poetry on 2287:

OK. I'll do my best to accommodate you. But I have some errands to attend to. Give me some time to respond. --

1768:

I am partly answering you because, for the sake of Knowledge (XXG), I want to learn how to get along with you.

491:

ask for reconsideration of your unblock unless you can explain why you think you can edit collaboratively. —

443:

3. The style is intended to establish a chronology - extremely important to understand the development of the

182: 4385:

I didn't mean to imply that you didn't understand that users don't own articles, I meant to imply that users

1774:

You're more than welcome to come here anytime and express any concern, and I shall try my best to oblige you.

424:

It shows that your completely mistaken on the first two items. T haven't yet checked the other two issues. --

4506: 4318: 3674: 2625: 2490: 4745: 3994: 2362:

3)Looked into it. But I now realize that I have no idea what your talking about. Can you explain please? --

1966: 1948: 1899: 1000: 113: 4723: 4451: 4213: 3916: 3759: 3435: 3313: 3181: 2926: 2269: 2253: 2137: 2049: 1868: 1827: 1741: 1734: 1715: 1693: 1503: 1371: 1288: 1171: 1114: 811: 495: 398: 208: 172: 160: 4155:"And your request that I should be blocked because I do not agree to unblocking a blocked user is weird." 3234:

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

2245:

Perhaps it would be better to follow 0RR* (if your edit is reverted, do not revert again unless you have

2235: 2203: 2130: 1751:

I do not believe a heated, but civil and polite debate over subject matter constitutes a "Confrontation."

1615: 1315:

Your implication that I effectively "seek" permission for every minor editing I make, is simply wrong. --

1275: 4959: 4501: 4459: 4443: 4382:

of them, and it's better for the project if users be BOLD rather than walk on eggshells over this stuff.

4337: 4313: 3035:

I'm not using any program. In fact, I'm a one-finger typist, right-handed. I never had the patience, in

1266: 1006:

If you are not put in your proper place by other Administrators - so much the worse for Knowledge (XXG).

4915:

any comment of yours. But I'll keep in mind your sensitivities in the future (if there is a future). --

4531: 4455: 3137: 3081:'s works of art. (Hope this style helps you in reading what I wrote in a style especially for you!). -- 1561: 1013: 117: 4235: 3874: 3828: 3753: 3743: 3678: 3666: 3558: 3394: 3274: 1499:

I'm sorry I misunderstood the question you left on my talk page. I'll go back and edit my answer. —

3054: 3013:

Ludvikus - when you read and write English, do you use a program such as Prompt to translate for you?

2983: 2827:

And I certainly will study what you just taught me extremely carefully now, I can assure you of that.

1820: 1621:

One editor can create a consensus, if he makes a change and it is not reverted or argued against, and

1092: 141: 4597:

which was circulated in 1919, in the United States in government circles. Legally, it means it was "

4165:

the issue you raise is purely academic, the characterization false, and the point irrelevant. .....

3938: 5001: 3670: 3061: 3211:

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

4981: 4920: 4869: 4817: 4753: 4698: 4675: 4656: 4631: 4579: 4539: 4472: 4410: 4346: 4286: 4269: 4221: 4170: 4104: 4084: 4064: 4044: 4024: 4002: 3974: 3946: 3924: 3904: 3841: 3767: 3622: 3524: 3478: 3327: 3169: 3086: 2998: 2957: 2934: 2882: 2864: 2790: 2703: 2656: 2641: 2524: 2508: 2367: 2349: 2309: 2292: 2211: 2176: 2156: 2114: 2067: 1812: 1791: 1574: 1447: 1423: 1320: 1200: 1074: 1046: 741: 706: 583: 470: 452: 429: 313: 253: 229: 190: 125: 47: 17: 4309: 4720: 2597: 2460: 2266: 2250: 2199: 2134: 1927: 1879: 1865: 1824: 1690: 1550:: Don't be sorry. Just do your duty as an Administrator. If I don't understand the meaning of 1500: 1368: 1285: 1168: 1111: 808: 655: 492: 444: 395: 205: 169: 157: 4801: 4648: 1777:

Please excuse any grammar errors - I'm rushed and I haven't had a chance to make corrections.

416: 3937:

What purpose is there in your raising that issue when the third party editor tells you he's

3107: 3065: 3023: 2874: 1556: 982: 556:

But I wish you would not jump to conclusions about the relevance of my Knowledge (XXG) past.

465:

did not "exist" (in the West) is irrelevant to the NWO, is beyond my means to comprehend. --

343: 4306:

I understand now 100% how to avoid - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor.

1957:

At the same time, no user should ask anyone for Consensus to add "nonsense" to ANY article.

1686: 1675: 1671: 1667: 826: 791: 786:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject/New World Order/Neutral lede

773: 4497: 3915:(2) What's the relevance of a third party's past alleged disruptiveness to whether or not 2769: 2763: 2742: 2733: 2631: 2603: 2588: 2577: 2573: 2498: 2468: 2451: 2437: 2433: 2202:, Since I've not heard back from you yet, I'm going now to read carefully your reference, 1970: 1913: 1816: 1088: 831:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject/New World Order/Neutral lede

366: 337: 290: 273: 137: 4462:, voted for the Restricting, announcing his knowledge about how I would behave. Now this 4394:. Again, I simply left you a note to communicate, "yes, people here do mind such things." 2344:

2)That appears extremely informative. I'll study what you just said. Thanks a million! --

2325: 2102: 484: 4190:

PS1: Because the image of the boxer disturbs you, and because you did not appreciate my

3223:

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

2651:

novice who didn't know the rules. Is there a reason for you having this kind of name? --

185:. I suggests you read it carefully. You've been here since 2005. I'm here since 2006. -- 4780: 4143: 4017:"If you feel I have made any personal attacks, please report it to the administrators." 3140:, I asked immediately that the ANI be closed. But for some it's extremely difficult to 2042:

I look forward to resolving this extremely disruptive situation I'm in as a Wikipedian.

693:

means that there's NO Consensus. Now please {{Cleanup}} the above of your violation of

248:

OK. I see your correcting yourself. So I'll wait to understand what your points are. --

3989:

Discussing an editor's past alleged disruptiveness where the issue is irrelevant is a

3202:

And let me point that everybody on Knowledge (XXG) considers themselves to be neutral,

1969:

by an Administrator who lacks neutrality because he substantially participated in the

1761:

I also am extremely careful not to insult anyone, ever, no matter how provoked I feel.

4977: 4916: 4905:"Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." 4865: 4813: 4749: 4694: 4671: 4652: 4627: 4590: 4575: 4535: 4468: 4435: 4406: 4342: 4282: 4265: 4217: 4166: 4100: 4080: 4060: 4040: 4020: 3998: 3970: 3942: 3920: 3900: 3837: 3763: 3618: 3520: 3474: 3323: 3228:

Its no surprise that an admin told you that you don't know how Knowledge (XXG) works.

3165: 3145: 3136:. I know what you mean. So don't forget that the moment you showed me just a drop of 3082: 3048: 2994: 2953: 2930: 2878: 2860: 2786: 2699: 2695: 2652: 2637: 2585:. It's too confusing, and extremely burdensome to expect one to be able know that ::# 2520: 2504: 2363: 2345: 2305: 2288: 2207: 2172: 2152: 2110: 2063: 1894: 1855: 1847: 1838: 1808: 1787: 1666:

understanding is that disucssing those conditions does not constitute a violation of

1570: 1443: 1419: 1316: 1254: 1239: 1230: 1196: 1158: 1150: 1141: 1070: 1042: 838: 737: 702: 602: 579: 466: 462: 448: 425: 372: 309: 249: 225: 186: 121: 4985: 4924: 4873: 4821: 4757: 4726: 4702: 4679: 4660: 4635: 4583: 4543: 4517: 4476: 4414: 4350: 4329: 4225: 4006: 3978: 3950: 3845: 3771: 3528: 3173: 3111: 3090: 3027: 3002: 2961: 2938: 2915: 2886: 2868: 2809: 2794: 2707: 2660: 2645: 2528: 2512: 2393: 2371: 2353: 2338: 2313: 2296: 2272: 2256: 2215: 2180: 2160: 2140: 2118: 2071: 1871: 1795: 1696: 1578: 1506: 1451: 1427: 1374: 1324: 1291: 1204: 1174: 1117: 1096: 1078: 1050: 884: 814: 745: 710: 667: 587: 498: 474: 456: 433: 401: 317: 257: 233: 211: 194: 175: 163: 145: 129: 4994: 4769: 4593:. But it still needs some work, fine-tuning. For example: I own a photocopy of the 4207: 4182: 2898: 2444:. It's too confusing, and extremely burdensome to expect one to be able know that : 2129:

think that means, as your understanding of "consensus" is different than the, well

553:

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt that the other editor agrees with you.

4773:

I know who I am. Do you? OK, I'll tell you since you seem not to know. My name is

4057:"If you make a charge against another person it is your duty to prove the charge." 3248:

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

1748:

mistake at worst. But for the time being I accept his nine (9) restrictions 100%.

1269:

is not relevant to NWO (ct), even if the book and conspiracy theory are relevant.

1195:

What on earth are you talking about? You Reverted, so please explain yourself. --

4360:

An early Wikipedian coming to the realisation that dead horses don't go anywhere

3833: 3305:

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

3133: 3118: 3103: 3078: 3036: 3019: 1565: 1019:

And I will do the same regarding my remarks, and what's by gone will be by gone.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3220:

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

857:

I have to say you are not helping your point that you put forward when you were

4602: 4594: 3669:. The section starts as a critisism of the wording placed in the block log by 3517: 3199:

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

3153: 2617: 2594: 2482: 2457: 2265:

However, stating would you mean by "confrontation" above would be helpful. —

1992:. ::::This kind of activity is explicitly prohibited by Knowledge (XXG) rules. 1745: 1730: 1719: 1708: 993: 1771:

Hope this answers some of your concerns. I may need to clarify things better.

1418:

is your issue of concern? Be specific so that I may address it. Thank you? --

224:

We can always do that later. Let me first respond to your specific points. --

4775: 4598: 4378:

misunderstanding or being uninformed on guidelines. After all, there are a

4281:

At Knowledge (XXG) there's too often a battle of words, instead of ideas. --

4077:"don't ask them to prove that they haven't done what they are charged with." 1245:: The NWO (ct) section was referring to yet another concept, not related to 4486:

was my fault. If you're honest with yourself, deep down you know it wasn't.

1439: 550:

But so far I do not see a Consensus on your specific complaint here posted.

2842:" (a little guilt trip is good, or effective, sometime, don't you think?). 2835: 989:

are just editors like any other, except that they have special privileges.

4199: 4195: 3124: 2621: 2486: 1919: 3043:

and enjoyed sending same to the beautiful women I met. Unfortunately my

1951:

User to be able to decide what is "nonsense" regarding her/his own work.

535:

All you have to do is let me know that the two of you concur on a point.

4860:

owns an Article? I KNOW! You're confusing me with Loremaster, who owns

3607: 3157: 3141: 3044: 2976: 2234:

I haven't been editing much today, but it should be clear from reading

846:

behaviour where people had to spend a lot of time cleaning up after you

3467:

Break up the question into two parts, and answer each part separately.

3264:

If you feel that I have not acted within the rules of Knowledge (XXG),

3214:

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

2302: 1932:"seek consensus before adding nonsense to the article" [Ludvikus says: 1367:

to agree with you, it might appear that you're being constructive. —

996:

watching my every move, hounding me, and checking out if I misbehaved.

4997: 4203: 3387:

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

3351: 3261:

Or would your rather satisfy yourself with suggestions of accusation?

3196:

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

2636:

should be the name of the DAB page (which it's not at the moment). --

2503:

should be the name of the DAB page (which it's not at the moment). --

2206:, to see if I could read behind the lines of your general message. -- 1035:

Are you willing to drop your initiated Confrontation and provocation?

3251:

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

1740:

However, I had no idea that I should be also extremely careful with

3164:. That should tell you how to protect Knowledge (XXG) from them. -- 2006:

An appropriate remedy for this is for User:Ludvikus to commence an

112:

Hi. I'm sorry for apparently upsetting you. You've acknowledged my

4968: 4946: 4768: 4355: 4210: 4181: 3594:

Your responses here, (1) failure to answer my simple questions my

3149: 3040: 2839: 2752:

4) Therefore, the best thing to do is to have the DAB page titled

2242:

can indicate a consensus depending on the weight of the arguments.

772:, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for 568:

and you'll instantly get what you want from me at Knowledge (XXG).

4500:. Calling another user a dick means that you, too, are a dick. — 3267:

do make an RfC or request administrative intervention against me.

4973: 4963: 4951: 4310:

Now, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

4191: 3419: 3161: 2690: 1954:

And the word "nonsense" in this context is extremely disruptive.

784:

please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

575:

is perhaps the most important rule at Knowledge (XXG). The End.

562:

So I've learned a lot about Knowledge (XXG) culture since 2006.

4202:

meant to imply that Knowledge (XXG) is a space in which we do

3895:(1) I did not "imitate" your "signature." You are required to 3381:

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

1941:(1) To the extent Consensus was relevant, there was Consensus. 903:: Now we have here (on the issue of deleting the WikiProject) 544:

Your "threat" to get me banned is an un-necessary provocation.

25: 4574:. Notifying you since you are the top editor by edit count. - 3243:

Which again puts a big question on your mentoring abilities .

975:

This is an excellent example of what causes {{WP:edit wars}}.

968:

Your query above is provocative, inflammatory, and extremely

637:

you seem to be saying that you are no longer going to keep to

4133:(d) You obviously were, and still are, in a "fight" with me. 4097:"You are charging me with sarcasm and disruptive behaviour." 4566:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 1707:

I first got in trouble at Knowledge (XXG) over the article

4605:, the it was published in book form a year later, in 1920. 2096:

discussions. Work on a few other articles using those

3296:

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

2304:. If you wish to reply, please do so there. Thank you. -- 1616:

WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus as a result of the editing process

628:"Simple - until you came on the seen, it was effectively 4993:: The image to the right or above is that of the Indian 4643:

Please avoid editing other people's comments as you did

4139:(f) I'm not "accusing" you, I'm stating an obvious fact. 4037:"Of course first make sure you have the right diffs ..." 3270:

But not before you have checked the facts for yourself.

3237:

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

1944:(2) What was or was not "nonsense" I cannot figure out. 1905: