User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 12

3191:. Anyone who reads the reasons for your two year block, in the archives of your talk pages, and the talk archives of the historical revisionism, related articles, and other pages, will see just how disruptive your behaviour was. For example as soon as it was clear that you did not have agreement to create "Revisionist historians", -- the last posting the talk page on that subject (in the section liked above) was at "15:46, 13 May 2008" -- you then posted a "requested move" to move "Historical revisionism" → "Revisionist historians" at "18:03, 13 May 2008" only two hours latter! It was you inability to work constructively with other editors which earned you a two year ban. 420: 265: 2495:

wikipedia is fundamentally based on. if you are confused, you are not obliged to respond, or as Loremaster pointed out above, have your mood ruined in interaction with him. you can go of-line for a change and do other things. or imagine this option, an amazing and ingenious new idea that might not have occured to complaining editors: you can spend some time editing other articles, and leave the confusing Ludvikus' comments to some other editor to deal with. what a novel idea! (well, of course, article "owners" won't like this novel idea)

722:: I've learned from my Past to be extremely careful not to violate any rule or policy of Knowledge (XXG) - even unintentionally. Knowledge (XXG) is a very difficult environment. Not only are its rules of behavior very difficult, but people of all walks of life are allowed to participate. In your case, I have to withstand you condescension even though I've been a professional educator all my working life - and you do not know if I'm 93 years old or not. 31: 1171:] and goes through to section NPOV on council on foreign relations, includes several sections I created including Editor assuming ownership of an article and georgia guidestones. I noticed your conflicts with loremaster last week and was lurking, happy to see anyone bring ANY other POV besides his. Notice he went right to a personal attack to discredit my input on the article. I won't be hypocrite and return what I'd like to say about him. 1447: 1234: 199: 926: 2409:, which suggests that you don't understand the concept. I'll let others decide which of us has better arguments at this time; whether or not your block record is better than mine. You have claim my referring to your block record and the reasons for it is a personal attack; if that were correct, your referring to my block record and misrepresenting the reasons for those blocks would be more so. — 2938:. I'm not saying that you "acted unreasonably." Quite the contrary. I understand now fully why you believed I had created a "POV Fork." I know now that I must be extremely careful not to do that because "historical revisionism" is controversial. I'm am not at all "Confronting" you. Or judging your conduct. I'm only saying that the Restrictions you are holding against me are 100% un-necessary. -- 3450:

impression of hounding those with whom you disagree, and seeking to escalate content disputes where you are clearly in a minority. Your protestations that this is not disruptive are not persuasive to me. I am therefore giving you a final warning: reduce your drama to content ratio, accept consensus even when you disagree with it, or the block will be reinstated.

2341:. That's why you have a history of being Blocked (look above where I've researched your record in order to find out if you are the right and competent teacher to teach me how Knowledge (XXG) works. As you can see in the above summary of your record of being Blocked, you deserve nothing but an "F" regarding your ability to teach me the meaning of "Consensus." Your 1149:

me you would have blocked me a long time ago. Your obviously Provoking and Attacking me so you could get me Blocked. I ask you again! Produce just ONE DIFF which shows a violation. You won't because there isn't any. That's why you put in my name next to the Vandalism diff. I didn't Vandalize anything - and you know it. So STOP leaving such comments about me. --

1986:

briefly - I get the impression that we have several editors, all of whom are seriously well-intentioned, but who have different agenda and possibly different interpretations of fact. I do not feel that an input from me is appropriate; I have not been involved in editing anywhere around the dispute. Is conversation between the disputing editors not possible? --

1099:

wrong person to Relax. Look above! Any advice you can give is of course extremely welcome. But I find it strange, odd, that you are telling me to relax. Read this page carefully, and tell who needs to be told to relax. You, Verdatum, have been always very civil with me - so I give what you say great weight. Have a nice day or night wherever you hail from. --

495: 2684: 1399: 1970: 3129:. I'm only Restricted from Nine (9) articles. The community recognizes me as an excellent Content editor. I avoid the two (2) articles which caused me WP problems in the past: "Philosophy" and "On the Jewish Question." It's the last which resulted in my Ban. But I'm a far better editor now in understanding Wiki rules. -- 2973:, I really understand now how badly my editing involving these articles must look to you. But I promise you that I will go very slowly. Check to make sure nothing in this area looks like a POV Fork. I also fully understand the need for Consensus. So there's no need to Restrict me from these nine (9) articles. -- 136:. I have a very good impression of you for the understanding you're showing me - and for directing me to the right places at Knowledge (XXG) where what I need to know exists. I think you make an excellent teacher. If only others could learn from you by your example!!! Now I really have to go on my errands. -- 3454:

I think it would help if everybody could do what they can to de-escalate this dispute, but it's clear to me that Ludvikus is the problem and not the others involved, most of whom do not seem to be habitual drama mongers. Folks seem to think that if Ludvikus can stay calm his edits are mainly OK, this

3161:

You apparently do not understand that I have not made ANY criticisms of the above two named editors. I'm only naming them because it is with them that I have a Content disagreement. You also do not understand, apparently, that it is I who am being subjected to an evaluation, not the two people above.

2437:

This is my Talk page. The purpose of my reviving your Block record is to demonstrate - to myself - that there is no reason for me to give a heavy weight to the idea that you're an expert from whom I can learn Knowledge (XXG) rules and policy. This is not an ANI page. This is a page for us to reach an

2178:

Thank you for alerting me, too. Wikipedians don't like wikilawyering but the ANI thread is so long and difficult to read. Too bad the accusations couldn't be clearer, such as "Ludvikus is accused of violating 1) policy WP:ASDFASDF, 2) guideline WP:ASDFASDFA, and 3) policy WP:1234. Accusation 1) is

1528:

It's the 1st ed. of "The Jewish Peril." I wouldn't pay some character on eBay $ 975" for it - would you? I have a photocopy of it from a scholarly library. That's good enough for me Maybe, at 10 cents per page and 96 pages (I pay be mistaken on the page count) I only paid for it $ 9.75 - and that was

3416:

For the record, let me repeat what I wrote last week: "Given his history of disruptive editing, a temporary restriction is inappropriate. Within a week or two he will muck up some other area of Knowledge (XXG), and soon thereafter he will be accusing every administrator in sight of having a personal

3297:

PS2: There's no need to go into my past. You're complaint involves my alleged WP "fork". What ever different kinds of Forks there are at Knowledge (XXG), I understand the most important thing about them - do not write a SECOND article because you wish to get around the FIRST article which you do not

2518:

It seems the going off-line idea occured to many other editors in contact with Ludvikus, and if you look above, that has left some articles with too few editors. But anyway, Loremaster could leave the article to Ludvikus and Batvette for a period of time. Then the community could see if there is any

2162:'s Personal Attacks - you're doing this especially because it looks like you're not going to succeed in your totally (100%) unjustified posting of the ANI against me to get me Blocked. STOP it already. Get off my back. Leave me alone. You are not interested in making peace. That's clear to me now. -- 1914:

I responded to the ANI as well as left a comment on the talk. I am offering to act as a mediator and to assist in verification of claims. I would also be willing to check ref's and help with general clean up on the article. I truly hope that you do not have to suffer the indignity of verbal abuse in

1564:

I don't think it is necessary to put dispute template onto the talk pages of these articles. There appears to have been no content disputes or discussion on the talk page. I added the UK far right category to these pages, but only because the pages are already listed on the UK far right template.

1098:

He's claimed that I'm the same person as that 212... Special user. But why are you telling me to relax? Did you not read this whole page? Maybe you should tell both Arthur Rubin & Loremaster to get off my back? What do they want from me? If you can calm things down, great. But you're telling the

3361:

PS4: The fact is that there were, and still are, only three of us on these pages - and I'm the minority. So there's no consensus in my favor unless just ONE of you TWO agrees with me. I would have to be an idiot not to know that I must this simple fact. And I hope you don't doubt that I'm no idiot.

2314:

faith in the Community can and does pay off. All the other editors, besides you, and your side-kick, know what a nice and wonderful editor I am - even if I'm not perfect, and so they are defending me against the incompetent attack by an unfit administrator like yourself who has no reason whatsoever

1148:

Stop accusing me of what never happened: "clear violation of your agreement which allowed your unblock." There wasn't any such think. You have no right to attacking me personally now. Someone who reads what you said may believe it. But you know that it's not true. If you could find ANY violation by

853:

showing any wrong doing on my part. You're only interest is in getting me Blocked. My promise not to be Confrontational did not mean I would allow someone to Bully me on my own Talk page. Our discussion here is not Confrontational from my standpoint at all. What I'm showing here is your deliberate,

695:

on me. You cannot produce a single DIFF because I've been extremely cautious in my editing. It's clear to me that EVERY TIME you disagree with an edit of mine you bring up my Past. I've learned a lot from my past. That lesson is that I should NEVER be provoked into Disrupting a Content article or a

645:

You seem to be saying that there is consensus for your actions unless if more editors have disagreed than agreed. This is inconsistent with at least points 1 and 4 above. Unless you are an established, trusted, editor, it probably would be best to assume, once your edit is reverted, that there is

111:

articles. It's used when some sort of meta-level scope and stylistic efforts need to be coordinated amongst similar pages. This is why your NWO wikiproject was deleted, and this is why a wikiproject for the Protocols article would generally considered inappropriate. If the work only concerns one

2494:

now, i can understand that some people are bothered with Ludvikus' sometimes confusing argumentation. he also confuses me sometimes. but is that a reason for me to tell him he should be blocked, or be silent, or not participate in wikipedia? that is simply ridiculous. it is against principles that

2220:

It's simple enough. From my point of view, Ludvikus is violating his agreement from the previous AN/I thread and (although it's difficult to find) the agreement which led to his unblock. That would seem adequate to at least reinstate the block until those matters, and possibly others that led to

837:

Not being Confrontational means, in this context, letting you win. Recognizing that there's no way, in heaven's name, that I could possibly win with you as my judge at Knowledge (XXG). Therefore, any edit which you make I must simply let stay on a Content page - otherwise you will consider my edit

2345:

is useless in teaching anyone anything about Consensus because from a contradiction Everything follows. But even if you ignore all of the above there's still this Fact: I've imposed a 1RR rule upon myself regarding the Content page. In other words, I only Reverted Once. So for that you could not

1700:

Thank you for your note. All three of you are fine editors that unfortunately cannot see eye to eye. I am going to do a little more research and see if I can come up with something that would be helpful to all. Sincerely Ludvikus I am sorry you have to continue facing personal attacks from these

1985:

Thank you for your alert to me. The only interaction we have had was, I think, an episode in which I advised you of the procedure for appealing against an article deletion, which was about 18 months ago. In the current dispute in which you are involved, which I have just scanned - I admit, only

830:

I'm not responsible for your memory, you are. Consensus means, with my predicament, avoiding every direct edit of yours. It means, in your case, that I do not even Revert Once. And when you Revert me, it means I never Revert you. That's how consensus applies now since you are clearly intent on

3449:

I do not think we have any significant previous interaction, I believe I am completely uninvolved here. What I see is that you were blocked for a long time due to your excessively combative style, and you were unblocked following an undertaking not to be combative. You are now giving every

2310:, editor ,] insulted and humiliated me, I kept my cool and level head. In other words, I was being Confronted and Disrupted by the both of you, but I took on a purely Defensive stance. That's why it's impossible for you to get me Blocked, no matter how hard you try. Because, as it turns out, 131:

Thanks a million!!! It's so nice of you to inform me of that. Unfortunately, I'm not excited about learning such things until the need arises. But you are so incredible to have taken the trouble to inform me of my mistake. Others only told me I was a "disruptor" just like before. So much for

3194:

You were unblocked at 08:06 on 21 September 2009. Less than a day later you posted a comment to the talk page of "Historical revisionism" at 03:19 22 September, waiting for less than ten minutes for a reply, at 03:27 on 22 September you altered "revisionist historians" from a redirect to a

2438:

understanding for the good of Knowledge (XXG). If you could teach me something about WP rules or policy - I can assure you I would be extremely happy to award you a WP Barnstar. But all your generalities so far have taught me Zero, "Nada." But I'm here, ready to give you another chance. --

1115:

Perhaps you're not 212.... However, that doesn't excuse your clear violation of your agreement which allowed your unblock. As I said earlier, may I suggest that you restrict yourself to 0RR*; never revert a reversion of one of your edits, regardless of accuracy or provocation. That

3336:" and (2) flagged the section with a POV tag. And also made comments on the Talk pages. That's what you cite as my violation. But the point is - I know now that I must be extremely cautious because you could even Block me for a violation. So, again, there no need to Restrict me. 2991:. But now I know that I need to slow down - to give other editors, like yourself, a chance to respond. After all, one might be away from one's PC for a couple of days - and then be shocked at what happened to an article. I fully understand that now. I think I went to fast. -- 3162:

I'm not saying a single critical word about them as Wikipedians in relation to their performance by WP rules. Having a Content disagreement is 100% OK. One just should not let that degenerate into violating WP rules. So I suggest you reconsider what you say here about me. --

1043:. So I was being light hearted about it. I have no idea how you feel the way you do except that I withstand you constant Personal Attacks on me. What I would like to know is why you invited Arthur Rubin, an administrator. You know that that's not allowed. 3397:, so what makes your new assurance worth anything? I do not see from the tone of your postings, that since your unblocking that you have learnt anything. I hope over the next few months that you will. "you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?" ( 2299:

I did NOT make a Contract (agreement) with Knowledge (XXG) when I returned. What I did was indicate to the un-Blocking editor that I had learned my lesson. And I did learn my lesson - that's why you are un-able to get me Blocked now. I promised not to

858:, and it's related articles. Now explain what exactly it is that you want from me in order to make me a better Wikipedian. Begin by explaining to me what it is that you mean by Consensus. Is it not simply accepting each and every edit of yours?' 848:

and your confusing me with him, or that I acted in concert with myself. You've been here since 2005. I've been here since 2006. So you are completely wrong about characterizing my work here. That's why you are unable to produce even a Single

3210:] which drove a coach and horses through you promise before the unblock that "... 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...." 1973:

It is often hard to find out who to talk with to gain consensus. By making a bold edit you attract the attention of people who are genuinely interested in a page, and have it on their watchlist. You can then discuss your issues with them.

573:

BRD is best used by experienced wiki-editors. It requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. You can also try using it in less volatile situations, but take care when doing

3180:<--Where have I written what you created was a POV fork? This seems like the mistake you made in not reading carefully the restrictions that I placed on you and which I had to repeatedly point out to you were not as you had read them. 881:. But I won't, because I know that you'll probably consider it Confrontational. So will you now award me a Barnstar for knowing when a Reversion will get me Blocked, even thought it's the right thing to do according to Knowledge (XXG)? -- 2542:

i just want to let you know that if you are pasting here selected comments from ANI and including peoples signatures, you should also place some kind of NOTE on the top of the section saying these are comments you moved here. cheers.

2350:

twice (who used a secret account until he was discovered) you still cannot prove that I violated the Consensus. That's why you're only able to Talk here about my hypothetical lack of understanding of Consensus. Do you understand?

988:

Things are getting a bit better since your arrival - I'm looking at the mirror and seeing myself. You know, if you and me are one, then they can't accuse us of a "conspiracy." So we better not tell them we're two. (Ha, ha!)

3056:

When people who have been repeatedly banned are allowed back to Knowledge (XXG), it seems sensible to have them under probation. If the ban was for two years, then that probationary period should be a lot longer than 2

1807:

22:02, 7 July 2008 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) blocked Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 42 hours ‎ (Knowledge (XXG):Administrator _noticeboard/Incidents#Review_of_a_block)

1817:

18:15, 7 July 2008 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) blocked Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring: extended owing to past blocks of this admin for the same

2848:

I asked for a review of a decision I had made. Not one of the people who took part in that conversation agreed with your position that I had acted unreasonably. I strongly suggest that you drop this ANI request. --

302:, "If a work is a "work made for hire", it has corporate authorship and is protected to the shorter of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation." It's still under copyright until at least next February. 1843:

19:12, 15 March 2008 Coren (talk | contribs) blocked Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Apparent abuse of admin tools in dispute; bringing to AN/I for

702:"Confrontational is exactly what you are doing to me all the time all over the articles we meet each other. Disagreeing with you doing that to me is not Confrontational. I have completely lost my belief in your 569:

BRD is most useful for pages where seeking consensus would be difficult, perhaps because it is not clear which other editors are watching or sufficiently interested in the page, though there are other suitable

1701:

users. I don't know how you manage to maintain your level head in all of this. I would be pretty upset if I were you. I am heading to the library right now, but I will catch up with you on the article talk. -

1487: 1319: 326:

A work published in the U.S. before 1923 is in the public domain. Period. No question about it. No ifs, ands, or buts. The provision you cite regarding corporate works applies to works created after 1977. see

2482:

b) is persistent about his views (which is good, as without stubbornness of editors on wikipedia, it would have much less quality articles, which in my opinion arise from intense discussions between editors),

3362:

So just give me a chance to be able to work with both of you, with my full understanding of what constitutes a consesus. Hey, if I cannot convince the both of you - you win. That's an easy rule to follow. --

779:

contrary to consensus, or showing a lack of understanding of the English language. There might be one. I was being generous in saying "most". I shouldn't have said it, but you still need to explain what

798:

agreed to not be confrontational as a condition of your unblock. If you cannot explain what you meant by it, I see no reason why you should not be immediately reblocked for the duration, or until you can

2283:. But I'll respond as if Good faith exists between us, even though I believe it does not from your side of our dispute. I'll think carefully about your remarks above, and respond accordingly, below. -- 3564:

Thanks. Therefore I give his position great weight. I will abide by whatever determination is made regarding my request to have my nine (9) Restrictions lifted from the family of articles related to

3594:

Yeah, and if you check his contribs, he was already on talk archive 7 in January 2006 (so he's obviously quite a bit older); do a bit of checking before asking a question that sounds so loaded....

2955:

I think we do have a Content disagreement. But I don't think that should cause any problems - because I understand now how to be extremely careful with "historical revisionism" related articles. --

1849:

04:27, 4 March 2008 BorgHunter (talk | contribs) blocked Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Kent Hovind)

1833:

20:37, 24 May 2008 Scarian (talk | contribs) blocked Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: On the Alex Jones (radio) article.)

2845: 3008:

This is all about me - that I know how to be an excellent editor in this area. I'm not Confronting you. I'm only asking you to give me a chance to prove myself to you. Please do that for me. --

1854:

23:28, 9 February 2008 Nakon (talk | contribs) blocked Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 days ‎ (Edit warring: same article as previous block.)

1517: 656:

More specifics: it might be useful to understand what you mean by "consensus" and by your promise not to be "confrontational" (which I can no longer find in your talk page archives). —

2489:

his reasonings on talk page (almost?) ALWAYS, unlike other two editors who have a habit of often simply reverting other's edits without providing them with any reasonable justification.

2306:

another editor. And you're a prime example of the fact that I kept - and am keeping - my promise. You see, in the Old days, I would have "attacked in kind." But no matter how much your

739:), I would be very pleased to learn from you what the answers are to three Questions you've asked. I look forward to hearing from you so that I might become a better Wikipedian. Thanks. 1194:

directed me Archive 3 of the Article above. But I only found there what he said about you - there is nothing that you said there. So did you participate in the above article at all? --

683:"More specifics: it might be useful to understand what you mean by "consensus" and by your promise not to be "confrontational" (which I can no longer find in your talk page archives)." 2798:

Since I understand all these things now very well, it is a violation of Knowledge (XXG) policy to Restrict me from articles where, in fact, I may attain a consensus favoring my views.

2346:

possibly find fault with me. But also, this Criticism of yours is purely Academic - you cannot produce a Single DIFF indicating that I acted against the Consensus. Even if you count

3213:

As a 16 month ban had apparently taught you nothing, I had hoped that 8 months restricting you from an area where you cause so much disruption (for example creating articles like

3455:

I will take on trust, but he does not seem to be able to handle consensus going against him. That's his problem not that of consensus, IMO. Can we call this resolved for now?

3232:

PBS. Please be fair to me. This is about the need to Restrict me now. I've edited hundreds of articles at Knowledge (XXG). But I was Banned for Two years because of editing at

2916:? WP "ANI" is a wonderful place to resolve disputes. This is NOT a confrontation. Asking Help at ANY is a "Confrontation"? If it is, I'll drop it immediately, and apologize. -- 838:

Confrontational. That is 100% clear to me now that that's what you wish me to acknowledge that Consensus means in this context. If I'm wrong, you are free to set me straight.

3050: 1894: 1890: 1732: 1728: 1270:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following

235:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following

1602:

I reverted an edit there by an anon IP. Take a look at the history and let me know if I made a mistake please? The anon seems to believe you are disruptive.. Cheers!! -

3387:

There's absolutely no reason to Restrict me from editing these articles. I understand now that controversial articles must be so Flagged and edited with extreme caution.

2952:

I certainly did not deliberately create a Fork. But I can see now how you would think that I have. So I sincerely apologize to you for all the distress I must cause you.

207: 2154:

I never violated ANY rule of WP, and I did not "counter-attack." The only problem now is you. You did NOTHING then to stop his misconduct. And now you're practicing

112:

or two articles, then the discussion about improving that article belongs on that article's talkpage. For a better understanding of the intent of wikiprojects, see

2260:

And it's not necessary for someone to violate a rule to be banned. A mere inability to make constructive edits has been ruled adequate for an indefinate block. —

765:

I'm sorry, as you have not made a substantive comment, I must decline to attempt to explain myself to you further. In the event that someone else is reading this:

1859:

20:36, 12 January 2008 Madman (talk | contribs) blocked Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Edit warring)

516: 2866:"... 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...." 3391:"... 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.... 1828:

16:53, 7 July 2008 Scarian (talk | contribs) blocked Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Edit warring)

3385:

had not made such a comment to your comments, and I think Toddy1 is making a valid point. Have you read anything that I have written, because you write that "

1046:

Please tell me specifically what I can do to make you feel better at Knowledge (XXG). You are to general for me to know what you want. Please be explicit. --

3053:. During the process, I found myself being accused of racism. The person who made the accusation afterwards realised that he was mistaken and apologised. 1007:

I don't what you are talking about but I hope you realize that the more you harass me the more it motivates me to get you banned from Knowledge (XXG)... --

3236:. The Administrator who Banned me gave the Reason as "disruption." That's over. I learned my lesson. There's no point to go over what I did wrong in 2008. 712:

no matter how I answer. Accordingly, I strongly recommend that you, who say you are "experienced" teach me by supplying the answers to your quiz yourself.

3143:

The purpose of the Restrictions is to avoid "disruption." It's not to "punish" an editor. And since I understand that I should be extremely careful with

2087:

has apologized to me for the Personal Attacks I was subjected to. You seem to say it didn't happen. That I don't know what it means. Is that the case? --

1838:

19:51, 15 March 2008 MaxSem (talk | contribs) unblocked "Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs)" ‎ (to participate in ANI discussion, was blocked too hastily)

1765: 2770:

I certainly will look to be much more cautious in the future so that my creation of {{stubs}} cannot possibly be misconstrued as "Forking" instances.

157: 1642:; as is noted by anyone who actually reads the NWO talk page, he admits having trouble remaining logged in. And he's not the only one who thinks 2366: 1278: 1242: 1186:

That's right - do NOT allow yourself to be provoked, no matter how difficult it is to keep your cool. Remember that Knowledge (XXG) prohibits

1084:

I don't see any evidence that Arthur Rubin has accused you of sock puppetry. Certainly not of this 212 IP. Perhaps you should relax a bit. -

243: 3188: 2544: 2496: 3214: 3049:. WP "ANI" is not "a wonderful place to resolve disputes". It is bullying and it is frightening. I know - I was on the receiving end of 1190:. And provocation is no defense - learned that a long time ago. But let's get to the issue at hand. You recommended a "See also" section. 2250:

suggests that once a change is reverted, it shouldn't be reinserted until there is a consensus in favor of it, established by discussion.

3429: 2520: 1596: 1937:

No worries brother you seem like a hell of a nice, if misunderstood person. Stay in touch and don't hesitate to ask for assistance. -

1759: 3733: 2734: 3302:

I'll be in big trouble with you. So there's no need to Restrict me. Again, I know I must be very, very careful with these pages. --

2197:

I'm no lawyer, wiki or otherwise, but the general rule is if charges cannot be specified clearly, it's because they are groundless.

1259: 854:

and constant Disruptive provocations in order to get me Blocked simply because you wish to promote your ow Point-of-View regarding

224: 3255:

set of 9 articles if I assure that I will do my best not to violate any rules which would give you cause to find fault with me? --

3217:

on 11:59, 5 May 2008) will allow you time to develop you collegiate skills, but this ANI makes me wonder if that is possible. --

2072:

apparently can't explain them to you. If someone else can, and you can then follow them, that would be the preferred outcome. —

606: 2801:

At the moment, I understand that regarding Content, I have no Consensus it's one (me) against two (the two above named editors).

2225:

his violations (which are clear to everyone else who has commented, except Ludvikus and Batvette), and agree not to repeat them.

3105: 2239:, both ignoring actions, and ignoring whether the arguments are based on Knowledge (XXG) policies, guidelines, or even essays) 3676: 3406: 3222: 2854: 2727: 2702: 2257:

for image selection. (This, although not, as some have stated, a violation of rules set by WikiMedia legal, it is a policy.)

1362:

Thanks, Arthur Rubin, for your constructive advice. I'll look into it further when I have a chance. I wish you a nice day. --

2781: 2280: 133: 2645: 419: 2134: 1771: 94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 3242:

Thereafter, after quite a few edits by me, you Restricted me for a Fork violation. You did not claim that I'm disruptive.

2184: 844:

That's a 100% untruth which is being fabricated as an excuse to get me Blocked. There was that editor you think was me,

59: 1187: 692: 507: 3609: 3203: 107:

FYI, I suspect you may be misunderstanding the purpose of Wikiprojects. A wikiproject is a broad topic that contains

805:. See answer 1. In quite a few articles, you have continued to add the same material until two editors removed it. 3417:

conflict with him. Save us all some time and restore his block." It is a rare leopard that can change its spots. —

1777: 732: 38: 2389:

Nope. I don't know you haven't violated WP rules even since your return; I can't name a specific rule other than

1419: 3672: 3402: 3218: 2850: 2758: 2751: 2745: 2698: 2671: 2548: 2500: 1570: 2891:

I do not think that "Confrontation" = number of ANI threads. I'm not "Confronting" any editor in this regard. --

2315:

to get me Blocked yet persists in doing everything possible to provoke me to write something which you, or your

1169:

My arguments with Loremaster were extensive, sure you're looking at the right page? It started at this section-

1040: 589:

There is a (large) preexisting consensus in the general community against the specific change you'd like to make

3248:

If we look again - we will find that "POV" is why I'm restricted. If you wish, I'll gather the Diff's for that.

3239:

A generous editor - not you - but I do not mean to say you're not - lifted my ban before the two years were up.

3080: 2512: 2463: 1233: 198: 264: 113: 2279:, your conduct towards me throughout my encounters with you at Knowledge (XXG) makes it impossible for me to 650:

editors agree than disagree, not counting yourself as an editor — even if you're going to just count editors.

3423: 2524: 2180: 544:

OK, let's try again to establish a "consensu" on Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines. Let's start with

2748:

appeared and Restricted me from editing an unspecified set of nine (9) articles related to the above topic.

2373:

you. There never was a case in which I put up an image that violated a copyright rule - and you know it. --

1948: 1423: 1246: 703: 211: 3686: 3600: 3565: 3329: 3325: 3317: 3299: 3272: 3252: 3233: 3144: 2777: 2723: 2663: 2641: 2413: 2264: 2113: 2076: 2042: 1753: 1739: 1650: 1410:

in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1929 (see

1346: 1318:

There was a serious of bizarre extensions during the time when the US was deciding whether to comply with

1124: 814: 660: 2785: 2773:

I sincerely apologize to these two editors for any distress I have caused them. That was never my intent.

2406: 2390: 2338: 2243: 2232: 2155: 2143: 1977: 1533:

produced by translating the text from the Russian. I don't know if he used the Nilus 1905 version at the

728: 545: 3418: 3101: 1987: 2475:

a) is polite (unlike two other editors mostly attacking him here, and quite often treating others with

3245:

The issue now is whether I have learned my lesson. If I have - then there's no need for a Restriction.

3379:... . WP "ANI" is not "a wonderful place to resolve disputes". It is bullying and it is frightening. 2068:

you have the good of Knowledge (XXG) in mind, but you don't understand the policies and guidelines.

1942: 1920: 1706: 1607: 1566: 1288: 1012: 512: 2017: 1915:

this or any matter. If I can be of any assistance to you or any of the others please let me know. -

503: 3394: 3271:

PS1: Here's the "POV" & "NPOV" reason you had given me for the nine (9) Restrictions regarding

3199: 3109: 2738: 2667: 2024: 1889:

Hello, Ludvikus. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

1823:

18:15, 7 July 2008 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) unblocked "Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs)" ‎ (reset)

1812:

22:00, 7 July 2008 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) unblocked "Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs)" ‎ (reset)

1727:

Hello, Ludvikus. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

2776:

However, in my opinion, Knowledge (XXG) reputation requires that the nine (9) articles related to

524:

the tags on the image? Thanks. It's a 1915 NYTimes image. So it should be in the Public domain. --

3745: 3722: 3699: 3648: 3640: 3573: 3521: 3504: 3483: 3442: 3367: 3348: 3307: 3288: 3260: 3167: 3152: 3134: 3116: 3087: 3032: 3013: 2996: 2978: 2960: 2943: 2921: 2896: 2873: 2832: 2816: 2628: 2563: 2443: 2378: 2356: 2328: 2288: 2202: 2167: 2092: 2055: 2003: 1902: 1872: 1793: 1679: 1625: 1585: 1549: 1495: 1465: 1367: 1305: 1215: 1199: 1176: 1154: 1104: 1089: 1073: 1051: 994: 978: 950: 910: 886: 866: 751: 529: 454: 396: 382: 309: 284: 180: 165: 141: 121: 47: 17: 3513:

You have only a Talk page listed - so I cannot tell if you're an Administrator advising me now?

3147:

related articles - because they are controversial, there's no need to Restrict me from them. --

3111:. So our record shows that I'm an excellent editor by you, in spite of your vote against me. -- 2791:

There's absolutely no reason to Restrict me from editing these articles. I understand now that

1893:

regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is

3636: 3398: 2410: 2276: 2261: 2138: 2110: 2073: 2039: 1748: 1736: 1647: 1343: 1245:. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Knowledge (XXG) takes 1121: 1036: 855: 811: 772: 670: 657: 433: 210:. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Knowledge (XXG) takes 2988: 2254: 1998:

I wish it was possible. If it's not, I assure you that it's not through a fault of my own. --

3710: 3097: 3062: 2311: 469:

Hi Ludvikus. Sure, I'd be happy to help you, but I'm not sure what you'd like help with. -

2398: 2247: 2031: 1446: 580: 563: 556: 549: 2393:

that you have violated, but you've edited in a number of articles which I don't watch. I

2365:

And since you know I didn't violate WP rules, you make-up new violations as you go along:

2320: 2242:

His repeated statement that he may continue to make his preferred change until there is a

2084: 1938: 1916: 1702: 1671: 1667: 1639: 1617: 1603: 1282: 1264: 1191: 1008: 970: 328: 229: 2764:

I understand very well a most important policy of Knowledge (XXG) - to edit by consensus.

2476: 299: 2616:

Please provide links to involved pages and editors, and notify editors under discussion.

939:

Apparently you yourself are engaged in Disruption, yet you insist that I lean from you:

3550: 3189:

Talk:Historical revisionism/Archive 3#Revisionist historians vs. Historical revisionism

1534: 1411: 1336: 1068:

I'm sorry you think otherwise. I'm supposed to be him/her according to Arthur Rubin. --

2846:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Ludvikus September 2009

925: 3741: 3718: 3695: 3668: 3644: 3569: 3517: 3500: 3479: 3463: 3457: 3363: 3344: 3303: 3284: 3256: 3163: 3148: 3130: 3112: 3083: 3028: 3009: 2992: 2974: 2956: 2939: 2917: 2892: 2869: 2828: 2812: 2792: 2694: 2675: 2624: 2559: 2439: 2374: 2352: 2324: 2284: 2198: 2163: 2088: 2051: 1999: 1898: 1868: 1789: 1675: 1643: 1621: 1581: 1545: 1530: 1519: 1491: 1461: 1433: 1406: 1363: 1301: 1211: 1195: 1172: 1150: 1100: 1085: 1069: 1047: 990: 974: 946: 906: 882: 862: 747: 680:"Comment Section headings are all relevant; please tell me what you think they mean." 525: 450: 392: 378: 358: 332: 305: 280: 176: 161: 137: 117: 3749: 3726: 3703: 3680: 3652: 3613: 3577: 3558: 3525: 3508: 3487: 3468: 3434: 3410: 3371: 3352: 3332:. And besides, look at what I did: (1) I abbreviated an expression by substituting " 3311: 3292: 3264: 3226: 3187:

on a redirect page which the consensus before you were blocked was not not to do so

3171: 3156: 3138: 3120: 3091: 3066: 3036: 3017: 3000: 2982: 2964: 2947: 2925: 2900: 2877: 2858: 2836: 2820: 2706: 2632: 2567: 2552: 2528: 2504: 2447: 2416: 2382: 2360: 2332: 2292: 2267: 2206: 2188: 2171: 2142:. I totally reject you traveling backwards in time. You're again demonstrating your 2116: 2096: 2079: 2059: 2045: 2007: 1992: 1952: 1924: 1906: 1876: 1797: 1742: 1710: 1683: 1653: 1629: 1611: 1589: 1574: 1553: 1522: 1499: 1469: 1371: 1349: 1309: 1294: 1229:

File copyright problem with File:Praemonitus Praemunitus - Contents - vi. (1920).jpg

1219: 1203: 1180: 1158: 1127: 1108: 1093: 1077: 1055: 1016: 998: 982: 954: 914: 890: 870: 817: 755: 663: 533: 482: 458: 440: 400: 386: 336: 313: 288: 259: 184: 169: 145: 125: 1539: 736: 719: 472: 429: 249: 810:

I had hoped that you would reply in good faith. I see my hopes were mistaken. —

3568:. I just request that I be informed of the determination here made. Thank you. -- 2050:

Arthur. Why don't we try working things out - for the good of Knowledge (XXG)? --

706:

because of what you've been putting me through. So I believe you will give me an

3382: 3126: 3058: 3022:

Look. I'm really an excellent Content editor (my "stub" blossom into "flowers":

2804:

Therefore, I ask that nine ((9) Restrictions are lifted as totally un-necessary.

2342: 2109:

personal attacks. Still, being attacked is no excuse for counter-attacking. —

1326: 1322:. It's not completely absurd. However, the solution is to add the appropriate 46:

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

878:

For example, I could Revert this Reversion of yours of another editor (212...)

784:

mean by consenus, as there is no possible way that your actions can be seen as

465:

Re:File copyright problem with File:Franz von Liszt, February 21, 1915, NYT.pdf

3333: 2347: 2159: 2158:

by trying to blame me for your failure to act as an Administrator by STOPPING

1620:

has Reverted your edit. I Reverted back. So I hope you join the discussion. --

3543: 2712: 2316: 2307: 279:

Left you a message. It's in the Public domain - punished 1915 in the USA. --

194:

File copyright problem with File:Franz von Liszt, February 21, 1915, NYT.pdf

3251:

But the issue is narrow - what reason is there for Restricting me from the

941: 614:

Section headings are all relevant; please tell me what you think they mean.

3496:. Does that mean you only have one month's experience at Knowledge (XXG)? 3298:

like - and the MAJORITY is against you. And I know that if I do that with

2323:, could be used by either of them to get me Blocked. Do you understand? -- 2016:

who has been involved with you in the past should have been notified, per

1414:

for more cases). Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image

1731:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is

365: 3377:<-- You are still not listening to other editors Toddy1 writes here " 2038:

not going to bring this up in the ANI thread, although others might. —

1666:

Arthur Rubin, I think you got it wrong. Loremaster Reverted the edit of

1300:

This is from a Boston, USA, 1920 book - so it's in the Public domain. --

355: 2754:

maintains that I violated the "POV Forking" policy of Knowledge (XXG).

1031:

Your Cut & Paste here is misleading. That remark was addressed to

2987:

There was very little activity in this area. And I though I was just

2868:

Well, this is already, I believe, the third ANI thread in two weeks.

1249:

very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the

214:

very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the

2722:

Both - to the best of my recollection - were heavy contributors to

2105:

you incorrectly claimed that his true statements about your edits

1968: 1488:

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works

418: 263: 3096:

And we've worked so well together (100%) in the last two days on

2401:, for example) and your agreement in the previous ANI thread. I 2579:

Please select the closest request from the following categories.

2370: 677:"Comment: This is true in most of your conspiracy theory edits." 3025: 2767:

I also fully understand the anti-point-of-view-forcking policy.

2613:

For all other requests, start a new thread at this noticeboard.

1969: 1277:

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

696:

Talk page no matter how difficult it may be to keep one's cool.

242:

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

1393: 1257:

of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a

489: 222:

of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a

158:

File talk:Protocols & World Revolusion - Contents - vi.jpg

152:

File talk:Protocols & World Revolusion - Contents - vi.jpg

25: 2221:

the orginal block, are resolved. But I would prefer that he

1064:

The remark you object to was for the benefit of Special user

3740:

There were such, distinctly so labeled and characterized. --

2795:

articles must be so Flagged and edited with extreme caution.

1232: 197: 708: 415:

Re:The Mass Extermination of Jews in German Occupied Poland

969:

How do you like that? (Or shall we tell people that we're

3514: 2719:

I'm in a Content dispute with the above two (2) editors.

1243:

File:Praemonitus Praemunitus - Contents - vi. (1920).jpg

3664: 3539: 3535: 3497: 3328:. So I had no reason to be extremely careful regarding 3280: 3277: 3207: 3202:

objecting to your edits you pressed on regardless (see

3196: 2864:

Ludvikus was unblocked on Sept 21 with request stating

2690: 1783: 1418:

be in the public domain outside the United States. See

1271: 903: 879: 597:: This is true in most of your conspiracy theory edits. 236: 552:, My comments will be preceeded by the word "Comment" 3492:

Your Talk page indicates you came to Knowledge (XXG)

3215:

Historical revisionism (negationism) (disambiguation)

2811:

PS: The DAB page now appears to have been deleted. --

1891:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

1729:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

2369:. This, at best, indicates that you just want me to 2020:, but I can understand your confusion in regard the 771:. I cannot recall an example of your edits in the 735:(a not-existent rule at Knowledge (XXG), it's only 1670:. So it's a dispute between them. And I side with 2582:You will be taken to the appropriate noticeboard: 3079:, you and I resolved our difference just today: 2558:Thanks a million!!! I was about to do that!!! -- 1439://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ludvikus/Archive_12 727:Therefore, since you profess to be an expert on 691:I cannot possibly respond to this Weasel-worded 208:File:Franz von Liszt, February 21, 1915, NYT.pdf 3447: 2337:You obviously do not understand the meaning of 116:and the various articles to which it links. - 8: 2757:I did no such thing. However, I see now how 2737:" was being developed jointly by myself and 2064:See my latest comment in the ANI thread. I 3389:", yet before you were unblocked you said " 1210:Never mind - I see you've answered me!!! -- 3393:", and despite that assurance you ignored 3316:PS3: I was NOT explicitly Blocked because 2827:Thank you for attending to this matter. -- 2650: 2367:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content criteria 2780:be substantially improved to conform to 2405:know you edited against against a clear 298:Afraid that's not quite right, to quote 2728:historical revisionism (disambiguation) 2101:Not exactly. He made personal attacks 1638:Yes, you made a mistake. The anon is 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2574:Administrative notice board/Incidents 1281:. Thanks again for your cooperation. 673:regarding the above here summarized: 430:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 246:. Thanks again for your cooperation. 7: 3717:In one sense, it means the above. -- 2397:know you've violated WP guidelines ( 1537:. But we do know that he worked for 1529:too much. This is the imprint which 831:finding an excuse to get me Blocked. 2587:Biographical article issues ("BLP") 1597:New World Order (conspiracy theory) 646:consensus for your changes only if 2761:came to the conclusion that I did. 24: 3734:Revisionist historians (American) 2735:Revisionist historians (American) 3047:Keep restrictions until May 2010 2682: 1580:I have no idea what you mean. -- 1445: 1397: 924: 718:The appropriate reply here is a 515:has been specified. Please help 493: 373:published before January 1, 1923 156:Hello. Please see my message at 29: 3106:Protocols of the Elders of Zion 965:You and I are one and the same! 631:Not the king of Knowledge (XXG) 3208:history Revisionist historians 2844:Enough, just over a week ago ( 1279:media copyright questions page 564:WP:BRD#What BRD is, and is not 540:Consensus, confrontation, etc. 244:media copyright questions page 1: 2235:(he defines it as a majority 1420:Knowledge (XXG):Public domain 1165:Talk: NWO (conspiracy theory) 1066:Special User 212.200.205.163. 559:(bold, revert, discuss) says 377:- is in the Public domain. -- 160:. Also applies to ...-v..jpg 3750:15:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 3727:15:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 3704:15:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2633:17:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2568:13:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2553:13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2529:10:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2505:04:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2448:20:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2417:19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2383:13:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2361:12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2333:12:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2293:12:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2268:07:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2207:02:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2189:18:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 2172:22:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 2117:22:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 2097:21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 2080:19:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 2060:19:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 2046:18:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 2008:18:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 1993:18:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 1953:04:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 1925:00:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 1907:23:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 1877:04:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 1798:04:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 1743:17:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 1711:17:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 1684:14:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 1654:14:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 1630:09:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 1612:04:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 1590:16:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC) 1575:05:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC) 1554:13:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 1523:12:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 1500:15:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 1470:15:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 1372:15:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 1350:14:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 1310:13:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 1295:08:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 1220:01:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 1204:01:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 1181:01:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 1159:02:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1128:01:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1109:01:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1094:00:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1078:22:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 1056:22:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 1017:21:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 999:21:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 983:13:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 955:16:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 915:01:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 891:00:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 871:23:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 818:23:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 756:22:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 664:21:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 586:BRD will generally fail if: 534:04:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 483:02:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 459:04:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 441:02:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 401:05:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 391:I stand happily corrected. - 387:04:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 337:04:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 314:03:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 289:23:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 260:22:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 185:16:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 170:04:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 146:15:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC) 126:15:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC) 3681:10:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC) 3653:01:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC) 3614:22:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3578:22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3559:22:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3526:22:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3509:22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3488:22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3469:16:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3435:21:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3411:16:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3372:16:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3353:16:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3312:16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3293:16:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3265:16:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3227:15:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3204:Talk:Historical revisionism 3172:15:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3157:15:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3139:14:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3121:14:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3092:14:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3067:14:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3037:14:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3018:14:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 3001:14:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 2983:14:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 2965:14:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 2948:14:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 2926:14:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 2901:15:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 2878:13:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 2859:13:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 2837:13:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 2821:13:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 2707:10:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC) 2030:hat-note in the heading of 1332:tag to the image, probably 114:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject 3771: 3538:. And has been here since 3474:Are you an Administrator, 3381:", but you carry on as if 2680: 2151:He Personally attacked me. 2012:I really don't think that 1424:Knowledge (XXG):Copyrights 1412:the template documentation 506:to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s 3671:, this ANI is closed. -- 3183:I said you had created a 2759:User:Philip Baird Shearer 2752:User:Philip Baird Shearer 2746:User:Philip Baird Shearer 2672:User:Philip Baird Shearer 2605:Arbcom ruling enforcement 1978:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus 1516:Hi, take a look at this: 898:And now you accuse me of 3441:Copy of warning left on 3125:I'm not on "probation," 2697:, this ANI is closed. -- 1486:OK! Thanks for the "[": 1386:I got it now: {{PD-US}}: 1241:Thank you for uploading 788:being against consensus. 206:Thank you for uploading 2535:pasting others comments 2179:because he did ......" 1895:User:Ludvikus revisited 1733:User:Ludvikus revisited 3687:Historical revisionism 3566:historical revisionism 3452: 3330:historical revisionism 3326:On the Jewish Question 3318:Historical revisionism 3300:historical revisionism 3273:historical revisionism 3253:historical revisionism 3234:On the Jewish Question 3145:historical revisionism 2778:historical revisionism 2724:historical revisionism 2664:Historical revisionism 2644:Cut & Paste: ANI: 2642:Historical revisionism 2623:Copied & Pasted -- 2511:Cut & Paste ANI: 2462:Cut & Paste ANI: 2228:Other problems include 1982: 1560:The Britons publishing 1265:image description page 1238: 1237:File Copyright problem 517:improve this user page 423: 371:In the U.S., any work 275: 230:image description page 203: 202:File Copyright problem 3102:Talk:World domination 1972: 1404:This image is in the 1236: 607:WP:What is consensus? 426:Thanks - Dziękuję! -- 422: 375:anywhere in the world 267: 201: 42:of past discussions. 2782:WP:Original research 2519:improvement or not. 2281:WP:Assume good faith 2253:Clear violations of 2231:Misunderstanding of 1436:in the United States 1039:accused me of being 581:WP:BRD#Cases for use 134:WP:Assume good faith 3610:"I'm listening...." 3534:He is, in fact, an 3395:User:North Shoreman 3320:. I was Blocked by 3200:User:North Shoreman 2739:User:North Shoreman 2733:A {{stub}} called " 2668:User:North Shoreman 2590:3RR or edit warring 1188:WP:Personal attacks 634:Not a walled garden 619:Not a majority vote 271:February 21, 1915, 3641:Taxi Driver (film) 3443:user talk:Ludvikus 3051:one on 1-3 October 2711:Good morning from 2181:Suomi Finland 2009 1983: 1646:is disruptive. — 1426:for more details. 1239: 775:articles which is 693:WP:Personal attack 671:User: Arthur Rubin 625:Not all or nothing 424: 276: 273:The New York Times 204: 18:User talk:Ludvikus 3757: 3756: 3637:You talking to me 3635:Who's "he"? Me? " 3601:Peace and Passion 3561: 3494:September 1, 2009 3467: 3399:Full Metal Jacket 2730:related articles. 2599:Civility problems 2593:Ongoing vandalism 2277:User:Arthur Rubin 2139:User:Arthur Rubin 1897:. Thank you. -- 1735:. Thank you. — 1453: 1452: 1037:User:Arthur Rubin 856:conspiracy theory 773:conspiracy theory 523: 522: 508:quality standards 478: 447:"Prosche bardzo!" 363:here's the truth 255: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3762: 3711:Holocaust denial 3606: 3557: 3555: 3548: 3461: 3433: 3098:world domination 2686: 2685: 2655:Extended content 2651: 2312:User:Jimbo Wales 2029: 2023: 1989:Anthony.bradbury 1956: 1787: 1766:deleted contribs 1449: 1440: 1437: 1431: 1401: 1400: 1394: 1341: 1335: 1331: 1325: 1291: 1285: 1033:Special User 212 928: 733:WP:Confrontation 640:Not hypothetical 497: 496: 490: 481: 476: 438: 436: 335: 269:Franz von Liszt, 258: 253: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3770: 3769: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3737: 3714: 3691: 3665:Given this post 3604: 3551: 3544: 3446: 3421: 2691:Given this post 2689: 2688: 2683: 2679: 2656: 2648: 2596:Page protection 2576: 2545:212.200.205.163 2537: 2515: 2497:212.200.205.163 2466: 2321:User:Loremaster 2135:Don't be a dick 2085:User:Loremaster 2027: 2021: 1967: 1946: 1887: 1751: 1725: 1672:User:4twenty42o 1668:User:4twenty42o 1640:User:Loremaster 1618:User:Loremaster 1600: 1567:The Four Deuces 1562: 1514: 1442: 1438: 1432: 1429: 1398: 1339: 1333: 1329: 1323: 1289: 1283: 1231: 1192:User:Loremaster 1167: 1120:be a start. — 1041:WP:Sockpuppetry 971:identical twins 967: 542: 500:This user page 494: 475: 470: 467: 439: 434: 428: 417: 353:OK, my friend, 331: 252: 247: 196: 154: 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3768: 3766: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3736: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3713: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3694:What is it? -- 3690: 3684: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3529: 3528: 3511: 3445: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3375: 3374: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3338: 3337: 3314: 3295: 3268: 3267: 3249: 3246: 3243: 3240: 3237: 3179: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3159: 3141: 3123: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3020: 3003: 2985: 2967: 2953: 2950: 2929: 2928: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2881: 2880: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2824: 2823: 2806: 2805: 2802: 2799: 2796: 2789: 2774: 2771: 2768: 2765: 2762: 2755: 2749: 2742: 2731: 2720: 2709: 2681: 2678: 2661: 2658: 2657: 2654: 2649: 2647: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2618: 2617: 2614: 2610: 2609: 2608:Content issues 2606: 2603: 2600: 2597: 2594: 2591: 2588: 2584: 2583: 2580: 2575: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2536: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2514: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2491: 2490: 2483: 2480: 2465: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2386: 2385: 2363: 2335: 2296: 2295: 2271: 2270: 2258: 2251: 2240: 2229: 2226: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2192: 2191: 2175: 2174: 2152: 2148: 2147: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 1966: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1951:comment added 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1886: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1862: 1861: 1856: 1851: 1846: 1840: 1835: 1830: 1825: 1820: 1814: 1809: 1803: 1802: 1800: 1724: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1633: 1632: 1599: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1561: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1535:British Museum 1513: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1451: 1450: 1443: 1427: 1402: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1313: 1312: 1230: 1227: 1225: 1223: 1222: 1207: 1206: 1166: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1081: 1080: 1059: 1058: 1044: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1002: 1001: 966: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 893: 873: 839: 832: 822: 821: 820: 808: 807: 806: 800: 789: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 741: 740: 724: 723: 713: 697: 685: 684: 681: 678: 667: 654: 653: 652: 651: 642: 641: 638: 635: 632: 629: 626: 623: 620: 616: 615: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 591: 590: 577: 576: 575: 571: 541: 538: 537: 536: 521: 520: 513:cleanup reason 498: 473: 466: 463: 462: 461: 427: 416: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 319: 318: 317: 316: 292: 291: 250: 195: 192: 190: 188: 187: 153: 150: 149: 148: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3767: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3738: 3735: 3732: 3728: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3715: 3712: 3709: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3692: 3689:(What is it?) 3688: 3685: 3683: 3682: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3642: 3638: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3616: 3615: 3611: 3603: 3602: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3579: 3575: 3571: 3567: 3563: 3562: 3560: 3556: 3554: 3549: 3547: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3512: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3495: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3465: 3460: 3459: 3451: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3431: 3428: 3425: 3420: 3419:Malik Shabazz 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3408: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3360: 3359: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3301: 3296: 3294: 3290: 3286: 3282: 3281: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3269: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3247: 3244: 3241: 3238: 3235: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3211: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3192: 3190: 3186: 3181: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3160: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3110: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3078: 3074: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3054: 3052: 3048: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3023: 3021: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3004: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2951: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2847: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2825: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2803: 2800: 2797: 2794: 2793:controversial 2790: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2772: 2769: 2766: 2763: 2760: 2756: 2753: 2750: 2747: 2743: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2714: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2677: 2676:User:Ludvikus 2673: 2669: 2665: 2662: 2660: 2659: 2653: 2652: 2646: 2643: 2640: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2615: 2612: 2611: 2607: 2604: 2602:Sock-puppetry 2601: 2598: 2595: 2592: 2589: 2586: 2585: 2581: 2578: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2540: 2539:hi ludvikus. 2534: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2521:134.106.41.27 2517: 2516: 2513: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2493: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2481: 2478: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471:. Ludvikus : 2470: 2464: 2461: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2418: 2415: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2387: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2349: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2304: 2298: 2297: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2269: 2266: 2263: 2259: 2256: 2252: 2249: 2246:against it. 2245: 2241: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2227: 2224: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2177: 2176: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2150: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2131: 2118: 2115: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2078: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2044: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2026: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1991: 1990: 1980: 1979: 1971: 1964: 1954: 1950: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1884: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1860: 1857: 1855: 1852: 1850: 1847: 1845: 1841: 1839: 1836: 1834: 1831: 1829: 1826: 1824: 1821: 1819: 1815: 1813: 1810: 1808: 1805: 1804: 1801: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1785: 1782: 1779: 1776: 1773: 1770: 1767: 1764: 1761: 1758: 1755: 1750: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1741: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1722: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1655: 1652: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1598: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1541: 1536: 1532: 1531:George Shanks 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1521: 1518: 1511: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1448: 1444: 1441: 1435: 1434:Public domain 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1408: 1407:public domain 1403: 1396: 1395: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1351: 1348: 1345: 1338: 1328: 1321: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1292: 1286: 1280: 1275: 1273: 1268: 1266: 1262: 1261: 1260:copyright tag 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1235: 1228: 1226: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1208: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1147: 1146: 1129: 1126: 1123: 1119: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1082: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1000: 996: 992: 987: 986: 985: 984: 980: 976: 972: 964: 956: 952: 948: 944: 942: 938: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 927: 916: 912: 908: 904: 901: 897: 894: 892: 888: 884: 880: 877: 874: 872: 868: 864: 860: 859: 857: 852: 847: 843: 840: 836: 833: 829: 826: 825: 824: 823: 819: 816: 813: 809: 804: 801: 797: 793: 790: 787: 783: 778: 774: 770: 767: 766: 764: 763: 757: 753: 749: 745: 744: 743: 742: 738: 734: 730: 726: 725: 721: 717: 714: 711: 710: 705: 704:WP:Good faith 701: 698: 694: 690: 687: 686: 682: 679: 676: 675: 674: 672: 666: 665: 662: 659: 649: 644: 643: 639: 637:Not a contest 636: 633: 630: 628:Not permanent 627: 624: 622:Not unanimity 621: 618: 617: 613: 610: 609: 608: 605: 596: 593: 592: 588: 587: 585: 584: 582: 578: 572: 568: 567: 565: 561: 560: 558: 555: 554: 553: 551: 547: 539: 535: 531: 527: 518: 514: 510: 509: 505: 499: 492: 491: 487: 486: 485: 484: 480: 479: 464: 460: 456: 452: 448: 445: 444: 443: 442: 437: 431: 421: 414: 402: 398: 394: 390: 389: 388: 384: 380: 376: 374: 369: 367: 362: 360: 357: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 338: 334: 329: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 315: 311: 307: 303: 301: 296: 295: 294: 293: 290: 286: 282: 278: 277: 274: 270: 266: 262: 261: 257: 256: 245: 240: 238: 233: 231: 227: 226: 225:copyright tag 221: 217: 213: 209: 200: 193: 191: 186: 182: 178: 174: 173: 172: 171: 167: 163: 159: 151: 147: 143: 139: 135: 130: 129: 128: 127: 123: 119: 115: 110: 102: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3663: 3607: 3599: 3552: 3545: 3493: 3475: 3456: 3453: 3448: 3426: 3390: 3386: 3378: 3376: 3321: 3276: 3212: 3193: 3185:content fork 3184: 3182: 3178: 3076: 3072: 3055: 3046: 3045: 3005: 2970: 2935: 2913: 2888: 2865: 2843: 2786:WP:Neologism 2710: 2541: 2538: 2486: 2485:c) actually 2468: 2467: 2411:Arthur Rubin 2407:WP:CONSENSUS 2402: 2394: 2391:WP:CONSENSUS 2339:WP:Consensus 2302: 2301: 2262:Arthur Rubin 2244:WP:CONSENSUS 2236: 2233:WP:CONSENSUS 2222: 2156:WP:Bad faith 2144:WP:Bad faith 2133: 2111:Arthur Rubin 2106: 2102: 2074:Arthur Rubin 2069: 2065: 2040:Arthur Rubin 2035: 2013: 1988: 1984: 1975: 1888: 1858: 1853: 1848: 1842: 1837: 1832: 1827: 1822: 1816: 1811: 1806: 1780: 1774: 1768: 1762: 1756: 1749:Arthur Rubin 1737:Arthur Rubin 1726: 1648:Arthur Rubin 1601: 1563: 1540:Morning Post 1538: 1515: 1428: 1415: 1405: 1344:Arthur Rubin 1276: 1269: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1240: 1224: 1168: 1122:Arthur Rubin 1117: 1065: 1032: 968: 940: 936: 923: 899: 895: 875: 850: 845: 841: 834: 827: 812:Arthur Rubin 802: 795: 791: 785: 781: 776: 768: 737:common sense 729:WP:Consensus 720:non-sequitur 715: 707: 699: 688: 668: 658:Arthur Rubin 655: 647: 611: 594: 546:WP:CONSENSUS 543: 502:may require 501: 471: 468: 446: 425: 372: 370: 364: 354: 297: 272: 268: 248: 241: 234: 223: 219: 215: 205: 189: 155: 108: 106: 103:Wikiprojects 78: 43: 37: 3383:user:Toddy1 3127:User:Toddy1 2343:doublespeak 1965:AN/I thread 1947:—Preceding 900:"Vandalism" 842:Reply to 3: 835:Reply to 2: 828:Reply to 1: 731:as well as 519:if you can. 36:This is an 3334:pejorative 3198:. Despite 2726:and/or to 2348:Loremaster 2303:"Confront" 2237:commenting 2223:understand 2160:Loremaster 2025:ani-notice 2018:WP:CANVASS 1939:4twenty42o 1917:4twenty42o 1885:ANI notice 1778:block user 1772:page moves 1723:ANI notice 1703:4twenty42o 1604:4twenty42o 1284:Skier Dude 1009:Loremaster 95:Archive 15 90:Archive 14 85:Archive 13 79:Archive 12 73:Archive 11 68:Archive 10 3322:User:El_C 2788:policies. 2744:Suddenly 2713:Manhattan 2487:discusses 2317:side-kick 2308:side-kick 1784:block log 1512:protocols 1416:might not 1272:this link 1247:copyright 716:Answer 3: 700:Answer 2: 689:Answer 1: 669:Reply to 237:this link 212:copyright 60:Archive 5 3742:Ludvikus 3719:Ludvikus 3696:Ludvikus 3669:Ludvikus 3645:Ludvikus 3570:Ludvikus 3518:Ludvikus 3501:Ludvikus 3480:Ludvikus 3430:contribs 3364:Ludvikus 3345:Ludvikus 3304:Ludvikus 3285:Ludvikus 3257:Ludvikus 3164:Ludvikus 3149:Ludvikus 3131:Ludvikus 3113:Ludvikus 3108:, & 3084:Ludvikus 3057:weeks.-- 3029:Ludvikus 3010:Ludvikus 2993:Ludvikus 2975:Ludvikus 2957:Ludvikus 2940:Ludvikus 2918:Ludvikus 2914:Question 2893:Ludvikus 2870:Looie496 2829:Ludvikus 2813:Ludvikus 2695:Ludvikus 2687:Resolved 2625:Ludvikus 2560:Ludvikus 2440:Ludvikus 2375:Ludvikus 2353:Ludvikus 2325:Ludvikus 2285:Ludvikus 2199:Batvette 2164:Ludvikus 2089:Ludvikus 2052:Ludvikus 2014:everyone 2000:Ludvikus 1976:Compare 1899:Ludvikus 1869:Ludvikus 1790:Ludvikus 1760:contribs 1676:Ludvikus 1644:Ludvikus 1622:Ludvikus 1582:Ludvikus 1546:Ludvikus 1492:Ludvikus 1462:Ludvikus 1364:Ludvikus 1302:Ludvikus 1253:and the 1212:Ludvikus 1196:Ludvikus 1173:Batvette 1151:Ludvikus 1101:Ludvikus 1086:Verdatum 1070:Ludvikus 1048:Ludvikus 991:Ludvikus 975:Ludvikus 947:Ludvikus 907:Ludvikus 883:Ludvikus 863:Ludvikus 846:212. ... 803:Amswer 3 799:explain. 792:Answer 2 769:Answer 1 748:Ludvikus 570:methods. 526:Ludvikus 488:Can you 451:Ludvikus 393:Verdatum 379:Ludvikus 366:Verbatim 359:Verdatum 333:Nunh-huh 306:Verdatum 281:Ludvikus 218:and the 177:Ludvikus 175:Done. -- 162:Station1 138:Ludvikus 118:Verdatum 3104:, the 3073:Comment 2989:WP:Bold 2969:Again, 2934:Sorry, 2889:Comment 2469:Comment 2255:WP:NFCC 1949:undated 1844:review) 1263:to the 1251:license 612:Comment 595:Comment 548:and at 504:cleanup 356:Veritas 228:to the 216:license 109:several 39:archive 3401:). -- 3077:Toddy1 3075:. But 3059:Toddy1 2670:& 2414:(talk) 2399:WP:BRD 2265:(talk) 2248:WP:BRD 2114:(talk) 2077:(talk) 2043:(talk) 2032:WP:ANI 1818:thing) 1740:(talk) 1651:(talk) 1347:(talk) 1255:source 1125:(talk) 902:here: 815:(talk) 661:(talk) 557:WP:BRD 550:WP:BRD 511:. No 477:ASTILY 254:ASTILY 220:source 3536:admin 3464:Help! 3195:stub. 2477:WP:PA 2103:after 2066:think 1430:PD-US 1337:PD-US 1320:Berne 1118:might 973:?) -- 435:talk 300:WP:PD 16:< 3746:talk 3723:talk 3700:talk 3677:talk 3649:talk 3574:talk 3546:ROUX 3542:. → 3540:2006 3522:talk 3505:talk 3484:talk 3478:? -- 3424:talk 3407:talk 3368:talk 3349:talk 3324:for 3308:talk 3289:talk 3283:. -- 3261:talk 3223:talk 3206:and 3168:talk 3153:talk 3135:talk 3117:talk 3088:talk 3082:. -- 3063:talk 3033:talk 3014:talk 2997:talk 2979:talk 2961:talk 2944:talk 2922:talk 2897:talk 2874:talk 2855:talk 2833:talk 2817:talk 2784:and 2703:talk 2629:talk 2564:talk 2549:talk 2525:talk 2501:talk 2479:'s), 2444:talk 2379:talk 2371:obey 2357:talk 2329:talk 2289:talk 2203:talk 2185:talk 2168:talk 2107:were 2093:talk 2056:talk 2004:talk 1943:talk 1921:talk 1903:talk 1873:talk 1794:talk 1754:talk 1707:talk 1680:talk 1674:. -- 1626:talk 1608:talk 1586:talk 1571:talk 1550:talk 1520:Zero 1496:talk 1490:. -- 1466:talk 1422:and 1368:talk 1342:. — 1306:talk 1290:talk 1216:talk 1200:talk 1177:talk 1155:talk 1105:talk 1090:talk 1074:talk 1052:talk 1013:talk 995:talk 979:talk 951:talk 937:PS3: 911:talk 905:. -- 896:PS2: 887:talk 876:PS1: 867:talk 851:Diff 752:talk 648:more 579:(in 562:(in 530:talk 455:talk 397:talk 383:talk 310:talk 285:talk 181:talk 166:talk 142:talk 122:talk 3673:PBS 3667:by 3639:?" 3476:Guy 3458:Guy 3403:PBS 3219:PBS 3006:PBS 2971:PBS 2936:PBS 2851:PBS 2699:PBS 2693:by 2674:v. 2036:I'm 2034:. 1945:) 796:You 794:. 786:not 782:you 777:not 574:so. 3748:) 3725:) 3702:) 3679:) 3651:) 3643:-- 3612:) 3576:) 3524:) 3516:-- 3507:) 3499:-- 3486:) 3409:) 3370:) 3351:) 3343:-- 3310:) 3291:) 3275:: 3263:) 3225:) 3170:) 3155:) 3137:) 3119:) 3100:, 3090:) 3065:) 3035:) 3027:-- 3024:] 3016:) 2999:) 2981:) 2963:) 2946:) 2924:) 2899:) 2876:) 2857:) 2835:) 2819:) 2715:. 2705:) 2666:: 2631:) 2566:) 2551:) 2527:) 2503:) 2446:) 2403:do 2395:do 2381:) 2359:) 2351:-- 2331:) 2319:, 2291:) 2205:) 2187:) 2170:) 2137:- 2095:) 2058:) 2028:}} 2022:{{ 2006:) 1981:. 1923:) 1905:) 1875:) 1867:-- 1796:) 1788:-- 1709:) 1682:) 1628:) 1610:) 1588:) 1573:) 1552:) 1544:-- 1498:) 1468:) 1460:-- 1370:) 1340:}} 1334:{{ 1330:}} 1327:pd 1324:{{ 1308:) 1293:) 1274:. 1267:. 1218:) 1202:) 1179:) 1157:) 1107:) 1092:) 1076:) 1054:) 1035:. 1015:) 997:) 989:-- 981:) 953:) 945:-- 913:) 889:) 869:) 861:-- 754:) 709:F. 583:) 566:) 532:) 457:) 449:-- 399:) 385:) 330:- 312:) 287:) 239:. 232:. 183:) 168:) 144:) 124:) 64:← 3744:( 3721:( 3698:( 3675:( 3647:( 3608:( 3605:☮ 3572:( 3553:₪ 3520:( 3503:( 3482:( 3466:) 3462:( 3432:) 3427:· 3422:( 3405:( 3366:( 3347:( 3306:( 3287:( 3279:, 3259:( 3221:( 3166:( 3151:( 3133:( 3115:( 3086:( 3061:( 3031:( 3012:( 2995:( 2977:( 2959:( 2942:( 2920:( 2895:( 2872:( 2853:( 2831:( 2815:( 2741:. 2701:( 2627:( 2562:( 2547:( 2523:( 2499:( 2442:( 2377:( 2355:( 2327:( 2287:( 2201:( 2183:( 2166:( 2146:. 2091:( 2070:I 2054:( 2002:( 1955:. 1941:( 1919:( 1901:( 1871:( 1792:( 1786:) 1781:· 1775:· 1769:· 1763:· 1757:· 1752:( 1705:( 1678:( 1624:( 1606:( 1584:( 1569:( 1548:( 1542:. 1494:( 1464:( 1366:( 1304:( 1287:( 1214:( 1198:( 1175:( 1153:( 1103:( 1088:( 1072:( 1050:( 1011:( 993:( 977:( 949:( 943:! 909:( 885:( 865:( 750:( 746:- 528:( 474:F 453:( 432:| 395:( 381:( 368:: 361:, 308:( 304:- 283:( 251:F 179:( 164:( 140:( 120:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index